From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-10 11:37:31
On Wednesday 10 October 2001 11:37, you wrote:
> Interesting naming problem. This "cast" has a few interesting properties:
> 1. The source supplies almost NO type information describing what types may
> be "cast-to".
> 2. The result object is in some sense "contained" in the source.
> Any others?
> I'm not sure how relevant (2) is, but the combination of 1&2 leads me to
> like "extract<T>(source)".
I could live with "extract<T>(source)", but I wonder if it would be more
precise to use something like "variant_cast<T>(source)"? My only concern with
the name "variant_cast" is that if (when?) we do get a bounded variant class,
it will probably be named "variant", so we run the risk of confusion: it will
be clear that "variant_cast" works with "variant", but why does it work with
"function" and "any"?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk