From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-31 10:42:44
>From: "Terje Slettebø" <tslettebo_at_[hidden]>
> >From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>
> > Soooo... Somewhere back in this thread Peter Dimov raised a serious
> > question about whether this implements the semantics we want. Was
> > there ever agreement on that?
>
> As I mentioned in an earlier posting, Rani's proposal does what the
current
> docs on is_base_and_derived says. It doesn't mandate public, unambiguous
> base class. If one wants that semantic, then perhaps another trait could
be
> useful for it.
Or, change the description in the docs to reflect the semantics of the
current version. Either one or the other needs to be done, I think, because
as it stands, the description doesn't match the current implementation. So
either we change the map, or change the terrain. :)
Regards,
Terje