[boost] safe_bool alternative?

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-24 01:55:07

Sorry if we discussed this before, but why wouldn't:

struct no_integers_except_bool
{
private:
    // None of these are defined
    operator signed char() const;
    operator unsigned char() const;
    operator signed short() const;
    operator unsigned short() const;
    operator int() const;
    operator unsigned() const;
    operator signed long() const;
    operator unsigned long() const;

#ifdef BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG
    operator signed long long() const;
    operator unsigned long long() const;
#endif

    operator char() const;
    operator wchar_t() const;
};

block the bad effects of having an "operator bool() const"?  (Your class
would inherit from this one.)  Wasn't there a problem with compilers trying
to match a Boolean context to all of these operators, leading to
inaccessibility and ambiguity, instead of using "bool" as an unique exact
match?

Daryle