Issue 750: The current definition for is_convertible requires that the type be implicitly convertible, so explicit constructors are ignored.

Title: The current definition for is_convertible requires that the type be implicitly convertible, so explicit constructors are ignored.
Status: dup
Section: [meta.rel]
Submitter: Alisdair Meredith

Created on 2007-10-10.00:00:00 last changed 171 months ago

Messages

msg3652 (view)

Date: 2010-10-21.18:28:33

Proposed resolution:

Duplicate: 719

msg3651 (view)

Date: 2010-10-21.18:28:33

[ Addressed in N2947. ]

msg3650 (view)

Date: 2010-10-21.18:28:33

[ 2009-07 Frankfurt: ]

Duplicate of 719 (for our purposes).

msg3649 (view)

Date: 2010-10-21.18:28:33

[ Bellevue: ]

Alisdair is considering preparing a paper listing a number of missing type traits, and feels that it might be useful to handle them all together rather than piecemeal. This would affect issue 719 and 750. These two issues should move to OPEN pending AM paper on type traits.

msg3648 (view)

Date: 2007-10-10.00:00:00

With the pending arrival of explicit conversion functions though, I'm wondering if we want an additional trait, is_explictly_convertible?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2010-10-21 18:28:33	admin	set	messages: + msg3652
2010-10-21 18:28:33	admin	set	messages: + msg3651
2010-10-21 18:28:33	admin	set	messages: + msg3650
2010-10-21 18:28:33	admin	set	messages: + msg3649
2007-10-10 00:00:00	admin	create