RFC: bool operators for some classes

[Guillaume Laurent]

On Friday 03 January 2003 02:04, Malte Starostik wrote:
> which ain't only shorter but also scopes those variables more
> appropriately.

And most of all is much less readable (IMHO).

> operator const void* () const { return isValid() ? this : 0; }

As an intensive user of the Qt and KDE API, this is typically the kind of 
thing I'd really really *NOT* like to have. It's not intuitive, because the 
condition on which you base the boolean conversion will be very diverse all 
throughout the various classes, and I'd wage that in many cases the choice of 
that condition will be ambiguous. David cited QString, which has both 
isNull() and isEmpty() : which one would you use for a bool conversion ? 
Likewise, KURL also has isValid() and isEmpty()...

The only case where I'd agree with having the operator are KSaveFile and 
KTempFile, because it's consistent with the std streams API
while (file) { ... }

-- 
				Guillaume
				http://www.telegraph-road.org