Re: Issue 4365: non-member is_smob<>(), is_derived_smob<>(), etc. (issue 231680043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2015/05/16 20:37:28, Dan Eble wrote:
> 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.

Well ok, I managed.  Issue 4400.  I like that better than before anyway.

https://codereview.appspot.com/231680043/