From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-26 05:49:07
First of all: Many thanks for taking care of this!
> SUMMARY: I would like to delay proposing a typeid() replacement.
> Instead, I'd like to submit my testsuite, and ask people to run it on
> various platforms and report the results. This will help us decide
> best to approach this seemingly simple, but very difficult, subject.
> would like to propose a boost::type_info class now (or very soon).
> Meaningful instances of boost::type_info will be constructed from a
> std::type_info resulting from a native typeid() call. Once we figure
> out what route to take wrt typeid(), then I think it can be used in a
> very straight forward manner.
This looks like a good plan. FWIW, I don't currently care whether the
boost::type_info is implemented in terms of std::type_info (and
therefore necessarily exposes the non-standardness of the underlying
platform) or a sophisticated technique to emulate standard behavior. My
uses of typeid are so limited that I can easily avoid the bugs of the
platforms I care for. In other words, I only need std::type_info with
comparison operators. Other proposed libraries seem to have similar
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk