Re: [boost] [intrusive] rtti_base class proposition

Subject: Re: [boost] [intrusive] rtti_base class proposition
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-20 09:24:25

Ireneusz Szpilewski wrote:
>
> class rtti_base
> {
>      virtual void _dummy() {}
> };

Once you have virtual functions, you need a virtual destructor.  Hence the base class should define a virtual destructor and then there's no need for _dummy().

> Every class deriving from rtti_base can be queried
> by means of RTTI, in particular rtti_base class
> and dynamic_cast can be used in similar way
> as IUnknown and QueryInterface() in
> COM Object Model
[snip]
> The main purpose of this class is
> to set some standard name for that
> pointer type.

Why is a common, standardized or de facto standard name needed?  The usual case is to create a base class for each context in which a common base is desired.  There's no value, that I can see, in having a common base for all such cases.

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software      using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.