On Tuesday 15 October 2002 04:38 pm, Craig Henderson wrote:
>  "v m" <boost_vam@[...].com> wrote in message
>  > 3. There are several differences between the standard
>  > and the current archetype classes, especially the
>  > iterator archetype classes. For example, almost all
>  > the relational operators (operator==, operator!= etc)
>  > have a return type of bool whereas the standard
>  > requires a return type convertible to bool. Would
>  > changing the return type have any unwanted
>  > consequences (not particularly in the
>  > concept_archetype.hpp) ?
> 
>  How is this not conforming to the standard? The return type is bool. The
>  standard requires a return type that is convertible to bool (Table 72).
>  bool is implicitly convertible to bool. What's the problem?
>  The synopsis of the iterator class in 24.2 itself defines the return type
>  as bool.

It's conforming, but it's not the best possible archetype. Concept archetypes 
should push the requirements as far as possible. So the relational operators 
for the archetype should each return a unique type that is implicitly 
convertible to 'bool' (thus making sure that no code assumes that the return 
type is exactly 'bool').

	Doug
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost