Boost logo

Boost :

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-27 00:49:03

At 23:28 2005-10-26, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

> > struct people: vecperson
> > {
> > ///some methods only, no data
> > ///nontrivial constructor as choir, but we still have
> > /// sizeof(vecperson) == sizeof(people)
> > };
> >
> > I submit that people is a concrete type, with no restrictions on
> > newing deleting, or containing.
>I do not question it is valid C++. It is also an example of bad practice.
>people is not just a vector of person - I dare to submit they are much more.
>Yet we could implement model of people using some collection of persons
>(amoung other things). What I am trying to say is that here is a clear
>example of confusion of "IMPLEMENTED WITH" relationthip with "IS A". And in
>most cases when someine trying to inherit from collection this is the case.

OK, fix the core language so that I don't have to write the whole
batch of forwarding functions, AND I get the new ones automatically
when std::vector gets updated!!
No??? don't wanna do that?
then it ISA std::vector<> (or whatever STL collection I choose)!!

> >
> > NOW if the question everyone else answered is can you do this?
> >
> > vecperson* pv = new people;
> > delete pv;
> >
> > I _suspect_ that it will work just fine,
>It will, but only for the definition above. As soon as you got nontrivial
>destructor in people I _am sure_ it won't anymore
> > but I'm not interested in
> > that problem, nor was there any indication in the OP that it was a
> > requirement.
>My understanding is that making it work always was a primary goal of OP.
>Unsubscribe & other changes:

Victor A. Wagner Jr.
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at