|
Boost : |
From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-09-02 10:08:25
postmast.root.admi.gov_at_[hidden] wrote:
>... Seems about as
>safe as static_cast, only it happens to be checked during debugging
>(only). Safe to me implies what dynamic_cast provides, and nothing
>less. Perhaps debug_static_cast (or something along those lines)
would
>be clearer?
After I sent the message using the "safe_downcast" name, I remembered
Dave Abrahams had already pointed out it wasn't really "safe" as
written.
If the safety improvement Kevlin Henney suggested holds up, we can
stick with the "safe_downcast" name if we want. But otherwise a
change is in order.
--Beman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk