[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue 4365: non-member is_smob<>(), is_derived_smob<>(), etc. (issue
From: |
nine . fierce . ballads |
Subject: |
Re: Issue 4365: non-member is_smob<>(), is_derived_smob<>(), etc. (issue 231680043 by address@hidden) |
Date: |
Sat, 16 May 2015 20:37:28 +0000 |
On 2015/05/16 15:09:05, dak wrote:
I don't really like this one. "unsmob (self)" should really be
"this". Using
the even less specific unsmob<Callback_wrapper> seems like a step in
the wrong
direction. This might call for unchecked_unsmob (should this be
protected
rather than private?).
That seems pretty safe. It would be mighty reckless to call "unchecked"
anything without understanding it, so I doubt it will be misused.
It would be nicer to [...]
but I've not yet come up with a working scheme yet.
And sadly, I must decline to help. Allergy medicine has cut my
brainpower today.
https://codereview.appspot.com/231680043/
- Re: Issue 4365: non-member is_smob<>(), is_derived_smob<>(), etc. (issue 231680043 by address@hidden), dak, 2015/05/13
- Re: Issue 4365: non-member is_smob<>(), is_derived_smob<>(), etc. (issue 231680043 by address@hidden), nine . fierce . ballads, 2015/05/13
- Re: Issue 4365: non-member is_smob<>(), is_derived_smob<>(), etc. (issue 231680043 by address@hidden), nine . fierce . ballads, 2015/05/13
- Re: Issue 4365: non-member is_smob<>(), is_derived_smob<>(), etc. (issue 231680043 by address@hidden), dak, 2015/05/14
- Re: Issue 4365: non-member is_smob<>(), is_derived_smob<>(), etc. (issue 231680043 by address@hidden), dak, 2015/05/16
- Re: Issue 4365: non-member is_smob<>(), is_derived_smob<>(), etc. (issue 231680043 by address@hidden),
nine . fierce . ballads <=
- Re: Issue 4365: non-member is_smob<>(), is_derived_smob<>(), etc. (issue 231680043 by address@hidden), dak, 2015/05/17