RE: [boost] Formal Review: any

From: Gary Powell (Gary.Powell_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-07 15:59:59

> >The issue with memory management is that in games we often have a fixed
> >limited pool from which to allocate memory. 
> [...]
> 
> I'm familiar with these issues, but my real question is to what degree
> do we want to parameterise every class we ever write and to what degree
> do we want to consider some of these as more specialised cases?
Smoke, memory is a big issue for those for who it is an issue at all.

> That is not the issue, the issue is that writing T<> has no precedent
> (IIRC) in the standard library. 
Before the STL, who wrote std::vector<TYPE> v; ? Almost
no one.

> Every class template in the library must
> be provided with at least one parameter. The zero parameter case just
> makes any look odd, drawing unnecessary attention to a rarely used
> syntax feature and what would be a rarely used parameterisation.
> 
IMO the usage of any looks odd.

  boost::any a;

  a = 1.0f;
  a = string("foo");
  a = true;

  boost::any b(goo() );

  a = b;

  What other C++ type does this? None! Which is why we need any! That said,
the change is in the definition of any, which is the least written/read/used
place of the type.

  boost::any<> a;
  ...
  ..
The question should be, can users figure it out? IMO Easily with the typedef
solution. Will incorrect usage compile, no. With the drop of void *
conversion. Does it read well, can a person not familiar with the type
figure out the semantics based on reading the code. Yes.

The major counter argument that holds sway for me is whether certain nearly
C++ compilers can handle the syntax, any<>. If they can't then its usage
would drop and I'd hate to see that for what otherwise would be very useful
code.

  Yours,
 -gary-

gary.powell_at_[hidden]