From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-21 08:58:56
Can I infer anything about your intentions from your questions below?
Is there any chance of getting public-interface deleter introspection?
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>>> I think that considering the alternatives require:
>>> 1. Periodic map sweeps (we might as well be doing GC ;->), or
>>> 2. Solving the constructor forwarding problem for tacking on
>>> additional data to the pointed-to class
>>> IMO it's worth giving serious consideration to deleter
>> Looks like I have to apply my mad "diligent reader" skills to the above.
> Yep, you got mad skills.
>> Now the interface questions.
>> Q: Why a free function? A: a member would require the p.template
>> get_deleter<D>() syntax when p is dependent on a template parameter.
> That's one answer. There's also p.get_deleter(type<D>). Either one is
> slightly ugly. But mostly I suggested a free function because it was
> what came to mind.
>> Q: Why use a generic 'get_deleter' name for the free function? A: ???
> Heh. I suggest that it /not/ be intended for invocation via Koenig
> Lookup, so the name would be OK.
> There is another option, of course: make it a class template, like
> boost::python::extract. Since introspection is a two-phase process
> anyway, maybe that's better.
> David Abrahams
> dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
> Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk