RE: [boost] Re: Should boost::any::any() be made explicit?

From: John Harris (TT) (john.harris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-23 15:29:28

Is the author/maintainer of boost::any out there?  Is this problem not
worthy of anyone's reply?  As it is, I have to modify boost source to get my
code to work.  We want boost::any ctor to be "explicit"...that's it.

john harris
trading technologies

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Schöpflin [mailto:markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:40 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: [boost] Re: Should boost::any::any() be made explicit?

I support your suggestion. Here is another argument in favor of an
explicit constructor. I posted it last year on the boost list but
got no replies. :-(

<snip: Markus>

-----Original Message-----
From:	John Harris (TT) [john.harris_at_[hidden]]
Sent:	Monday, April 22, 2002 9:58 AM
To:	'boost_at_[hidden]'
Subject:	[boost] Should boost::any::any() be made explicit?

I think the template constructor for boost::any is too general.  I ran into
the problem while trying to overload 

        ostream&operator<<(ostream&, const boost::any&)

If I try to do this, then all types are automatically included in this
overload (because boost::any can be constructed from any type).

I want to provide support for only a couple of types in my overload, and
because of my architecture, I have to have this overload.

Is there any reason not to have boost::any::any() be explicit?

john harris
trading technologies

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost