I have another question related to the safe bool idiom: typedef void (Testable::*bool_type)() const; // const necessary? void this_type_does_not_support_comparisons() const {} // const necessary? ...

Does the boost library provide an implementation of a safe bool idiom, so that I could derive my class from it? If yes - where is it? If no - what are my alternatives beyond implementing it mysel...

I'm trying to design a bool wrapper struct applying the safe bool idiom. The classic implementation to solve this is pretty trivial: the skeleton could be something like this: struct Bool final { ...

Consider the following excerpt from the safe bool idiom: typedef void (Testable::*bool_type)() const; operator bool_type() const; Is it possible to declare the conversion function without the ty...

I'm trying to leverage boost::bool_testable<> (from Boost.Operators) to implement the safe bool idiom for a class, but the most recent version of the library (1.49 as of this post) doesn't se...

I'm thinking of replacing all the instances of safe bool idiom by explicit operator bool in code which already uses C++11 features (so the fact that older compilers don't recognized explicit conver...

This answer of @R. Martinho Fernandes shows, that the safe-bool idiom is apperently deprecated in C++11, as it can be replaced by a simple explicit operator bool() const; according to the standa...

25% of programmers work time is spended by checking if the required code already exist. I'm searching for a base class for implementing the safe bool idiom.

Could someone explain me why this code: class safe_bool_base { //13 protected: typedef void (safe_bool_base::*bool_type)() const; void this_type_does_not_support_comparisons() const {} //18 ...