From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-17 09:36:16
On Thursday 17 October 2002 08:10 am, Peter Dimov wrote:
> This means that the requirements are broken, not that there is something
> wrong with the code. The requirement should be "usable in boolean
> expressions and other contexts where a bool is required" and not
> "convertible to bool". I'm sure that this is the original intent.
Is there a library issue for this? I haven't found one.
> There are "de facto" requirement tables that are never mentioned in the
> standard, but they do exist, and are more important than the real tables.
Where?
Doug