From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-22 06:46:28
> That's very well put; I don't think anyone thought very carefully
> about the meaning of "convertible" before, and I think we could
> probably stand to tighten up our documentation in this area. All it
> says right now is:
>
> Evaluates to true if type T is convertible to type U.
> Types T and U must not be incomplete, abstract or function types.
>
> Can you suggest an appropriate technical explanation?
Well the wording in the standardisation proposal says:
"value: defined to be true only if type From is implicitly-convertible to
type To (4.0).
Which really says it all IMO (by reference to section 4.0 of the standard.
John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm