Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeremy Pack (rostovpack_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-15 14:08:48

I agree. It would be very compiler dependent to have the library find
arbitrary classes in a linked library and determine their methods. What I
was thinking of is a bit simpler. It would require a reflected class to have
it's reflected methods declared as such. It would be a bit similar to the
Boost.Python syntax, except that it would, like Boost.Extension, require
only one library entry point and it would need to add some stuff for type
safety, without inducing a lot of runtime overhead.

On 3/15/07, Sohail Somani <s.somani_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> > [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Pack
> > The method that would fit best with Boost.Extension would
> > probably be the
> > ability to instantiate classes that are not derived from
> > known (that is,
> > known to the instantiator) base classes, and then discover
> > functions that
> > can be called on them.
> Isn't this painfully compiler dependent? It would be awesome, totally
> awesome if one was able to handle it. But that would probably be quite
> difficult? Maybe __FUNCTION__ can help...
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

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