Re: [boost] Virtual operators considered harmful

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-25 03:46:59

Daryle Walker wrote:
> [Apologies to the computer scientist who came up with that phrase 
> (w.r.t. GOTOs)]
> 
> I haven't looked at the serialization library that was just up for 
> review, but some of the comments I saw on this list suggested that the 
> archive classes use virtual operators for reading or writing the basic 
> types.  I have a book called _C++ FAQs_ (2nd ed.) that has a blurb about 
> a virtual assignment operator.  I think the concept is too funky because:
> 
> 1.    You have no choice about an operator's interface, even if that 
> interface isn't the best for inheritance.
> 2.    The dispatch interactions could introduce subtleties.

Is there virtual assignment operator anywhere in serialization lib?

> I have a better idea: use the "concrete function calls a virtual 
> function" idiom.  Maybe it could be like:

Ehh... did you arrive to this conclusion based on reading review
comments? I positively don't see any urgent need for this idiom,
this would only make Robert change names everywhere.

- Volodya