Max Moroz <mmoroz@ucla.edu> writes:

>In the draft standard of mid-1996 there was a clause 4.12 about base
>class conversion being one of the standard conversions. In December 1996
>draft standard, this clause disappeared.
>
>What is the reason for that?

My educated guess is that the basic reason is that it wasn't necessary,
and removing it avoided some confusions (about when it should be
applied, whether the result was a new object and if so what happened if
the appropriate base class was not accessible, etc.).

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

In the draft standard of mid-1996 there was a clause 4.12 about base
class conversion being one of the standard conversions. In December 1996
draft standard, this clause disappeared.

What is the reason for that?

Thanks.

 -- Max
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]