On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com>wrote:
Brian Bartman wrote:
Would it be better to make the pointer_plus_bits convertible to a boolean based on the value of the pointer being stored? This would allow it to be more like to a pointer being that you could, as many people do, put it inside of an if statement to check to see if its null.
No. One could argue that the bits should be evaluated to produce the Boolean result as easily as evaluating the pointer. There are two aspects in pointer_plus_bits and they shouldn't be obscured or conflated.
So what your saying in this one in this email and the one above is that there is a distinct need for two interfaces. One for the pointer and one for the bits. Which can be done using the veiw's suggested by Zitat von Joaquin's response. I see your point that there is a definite need for multiple interfaces due to the mixing of different items within the data. It really does leave room for ambiguity in behavior if you only have one interface.
_____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- thanks, Brian Bartman