Re: [boost] Re: compile time member detection

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-23 00:47:41

Mat Marcus <mat-boost_at_[hidden]> writes:

| >> > - "Clonable and Foo were developed separately"
| >> >
| >> > Suppose they come from two different vendor libraries, and today
| >> > you decide to use those two libraries together.  You, the client
| >> > of these libraries, will have to write the instance declaration.
| >> > In the implementation you may have to "smooth over" the
| >> > interface: we can imagine that perhaps Foo natively provides a
| >> > "duplicate" method, so you have to write
| >> >   instance Clonable Foo where
| >> >      clone aFoo = aFoo.duplicate() // using C++ syntax to
| >> > illustrate idea
| >> >
| >> > Etc.  There are probably other scenarios, too.
| >>
| >> Yes, I've also been wanting this in C++. The ability to
| >> rename/remap  operations to allow achieve conformance seems highly
| >> desirable. But
| >
| > Well, you can already do this in C++ (using the age-old "any problem
| > in computer science can be solved by adding an extra layer of
| > indirection").
| 
| Let me restate. I've been wanting something like this as part of a
| proposed C++ concept mechanism for C++ '0x. The current papers don't
| yet appear to provide for a remapping facility.

I'm pretty sure we listed "rewriting" as an explicit design criteria.
(At least, I do distinctly recall Bjarne and I discussed it on blackboard)

That criteria might not be high in the priority list but it is there.

-- Gaby