From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-01 17:39:50
At 05:14 PM 3/1/2002, rameysb wrote:
>As no option is ranked first in every catagory, and different
>applications have different priorities - there is no way that there
>can be universal agreement on this point.
That's for sure:-)
>I am currently making changes that will implement iarchive and
>oarchive as base classes. while the specific types will be handled
>through virtual functions.
I suppose this came up before, and I missed it, but wouldn't the more usual
case be applications wanting compile-time polymorphism? Would there be a
way to provide that, with runtime polymorphism only when specifically
>This wll permit any application to use his preferred format with no
Great! Really a requirement for wide use.
>I hope this will adddress the issue
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk