Re: [boost] [numeric_cast] request for boost::numeric_downcast

Subject: Re: [boost] [numeric_cast] request for boost::numeric_downcast
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-14 09:50:15

No, I agree. The casts should be called assert_dynamic_cast, etc.  
polymorphic_downcast is differ because it turns into a static_cast in  
release builds.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 14, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden] 
 > wrote:

> David Abrahams skrev:
>> on Tue Nov 11 2008, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen-AT- 
>> dezide.com> wrote:
>>>> Not to me.  In what sense is this proposed cast "down?"
>>> Well, as you say, its narrowing.
>>>
>>> The naming applied to polymorphic_cast and polymorphic_downcast is  
>>> not
>>> perfect either, since both can be used to "casting down".
>> That's like saying a knife is badly named because it can be used for
>> "slicing carrots."
>
> Do you disagree with my proposal that we should have some consistent  
> way  of naming a cast that does a debug check, but otherwise is  
> unchecked?
>
> I suggested
>
>    boost::numeric_debug_cast
>    boost::polymorphic_debug_cast
>    boost::any_debug_cast
>
> but perhaps
>
>    boost::numeric_static_cast
>    boost::polymorphic_static_cast
>    boost::any_static_cast
>
> which reads nice, but the names are getting awfully long.
>
> -Thorsten
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>