It's really a minor issue, but this utility's role is to use a base class as
a member (construct it early, but don't inherit its members).
Wouldn't it be more natural to call it member_from_base (or
base_as_member) ?


this class was motivated by the case of deriving std::basic_stream, like in
boost/test/detail/nullstream.hpp (edited to make shorter lines) :

template<typename Ch, class Tr > 
class basic_onullstream : 
   private boost::base_from_member<basic_nullbuf<Ch, Tr>  >
  ,public ::std::basic_ostream<Ch, Tr>  
{
  typedef boost::base_from_member<basic_nullbuf<Ch, Tr>  > pbase_type;
  typedef ::std::basic_ostream<Ch, Tr>   base_type;
public:
  // Constructor
  basic_onullstream() 
   : pbase_type(), base_type( &this-> pbase_type::member ) {}
};

and I must say reading 'base_from_member< .. > ' confused me for a few
seconds. (even if I knew from the beginning this stream class was probably
deriving basic_nullbuf as a way to construct it early)

I think 'base_from_member' refers to the writing process, where we transform
a member into a base using this class. 
But from the reader point of view, it's the opposite, the intent of the
template class is to transform a base into a member..

-- 
Samuel

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