From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-11-21 14:50:26
> I have found a slightly different form to be useful in my programming. I
> originally used Nathan's code, but added typedef's for the template
> parameters, the capability of letting Member be a reference type, and a
> specialization for swap (if Member has specialized swap for efficiency, that
> specialization is lost in the original, even if Base is empty). Lastly, for
> convenience, I added three additional constructors. I chose to use the name
My thoughts after reading the enclosed code:
Like Beman, I prefer the name "member" to "m".
In the specialization of swap, I'd prefer a C++-style static_cast to the
C-style one, "(Base&)". I want to be able to turn on the "warning on C-style
cast" option that's already available in GCC, and I don't want any Boost
headers to trigger that warning.
I suggest we remove the empty inline destructor definition. Does the it
make things more efficient? When I tested it with the compilers I use, it
made no difference in the code generated. If it doesn't make things any
better, I'd prefer to omit it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk