From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-04 06:47:58
In message <006b01c0165e$8751dd40$3e0524d4_at_pdimov>, Peter Dimov
>> I agree that ref<> itself is not a cloning pointer, but from my
>> perspective the role it can play overlaps strongly. So a clearer name
>> would be a start.
>I'm open to suggestions. :)
Err... <thinks>... <sidetracks> How about listing what you think are its
defining features, and from that drawing a name that seems to capture
this or at least part of it?
>int + string would throw an exception in the scheme I had in mind, because
>int + string doesn't compile in the statically typed case.
Yes, either an exception or an error object (eg the moral equivalent of
>So I conclude that making any behave exactly like the statically-typed
>values is very difficult.
>Perhaps I misinterpreted your original intent, however.
A little, but the idea of a customised double and single dispatch engine
was what I had in mind; making any behave exactly like a statically-
typed value was not -- that's what statically type values are for ;->
However, I did not see this as part of the core any offering, ie it is
something that a user can layer on top according to preference. I also
would not support a combinatorial explosion of operations, eg int and
double, char and string and char *, and so on.
Kevlin Henney phone: +44 117 942 2990
Curbralan Ltd mobile: +44 7801 073 508
kevlin_at_[hidden] fax: +44 870 052 2289
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk