From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-29 09:27:54
"John Maddock" <jm_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I've always felt that is_base_and_derived is a funny name. is_base_of<B,
> D>
>> and is_derived_from<D, B> both look pronounceable(sp?) to me: "is B a base
>> of D? is D derived from B?"
>>
> The LWG suggested (and I agreed with) a change to "is_base".
Wow, how did I miss that? I find is_base_and_derived to be much
clearer. With "is_base", how will I know which of the two arguments
is the supposed base class?
--
David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution