From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-21 18:08:58
Ariel Badichi <abadichi_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> Another thought:
>>
>> g = 0;
>>
>> it's easy to arrange that only a literal zero works there.
>
> How?
Allow assignment only from a private member pointer type. It's
similar to the operator safe_bool idiom.
>> I don't love it, but maybe it will get your ideas flowing.
>>
>
> Something like:
>
> g = guard::inactive;
> g = guard::active;
>
> or maybe
>
> g = guard::dismissed;
> g = !guard::dismissed;
> (ugh)
>
> ?
No, the whole point of
g = 0;
was to get you out of having to find a name for this thing.
> Overloading operators here may be a bit counter-intuitive.
Maybe so. I have no strong opinion on the matter.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com