I guess I'm being a pain, but I still have my same problem. To recap: I write saying that implicitly_convertible<X, char*> doesn't work. Dave responds saying that char* is not a valid C++ string, that char const * should work. I amend my example to show that char const * does not work. Thread gets a little sidetracked with "const char*" vs "char const *" ...Limbo On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 14:23:07 -0400, Dusty Leary <dleary@gmail.com> wrote:
yeah, that was an unrelated side note that someone else brought up... the issue is that implicity_convertible<X, const char*> is not working
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 14:19:27 -0400, David Abrahams
<dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Dusty Leary <dleary@gmail.com> writes:
so, any news on this?
What news grould there be? char const* and const char* are the same thing, so trying it won't make any difference.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:49:39 -0400, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
"Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <rwgk@yahoo.com> writes:
I don't really feel competent in this matter, but I believe char const* and const char* are two different things. Did you try it with "const char*"?
They are the same thing.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________ C++-sig mailing list C++-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/c++-sig