Subject: Re: [boost] [intrusive] rtti_base class proposition
From: Matus Chochlik (chochlik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-21 12:48:49
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Ireneusz Szpilewski
> Stefan Strasser wrote:
>> Am Tuesday 20 October 2009 19:47:38 schrieb Ireneusz Szpilewski:
>>> Â > Why is a common, standardized or de facto standard name needed? Â The
>>> usual case is to create a base class for each context in which a common
>>> base is desired.
>> there are various solutions for this in C++ and boost.
>> when you migrate from another language a common object base class might
>> seem necessary, but I don't know of a case that can't be handled by void *,
>> boost::any, boost::variant...
> I think it would be yet another possibility, kind of smart void*.
Actually there is such "smart void*" which does rtti checking during casts
in the Boost Vault: [vault]/Memory/RawPtr/rawptr-draft.zip
> In math, objects having special properties deserve unique name to
> identify them, as 0, 1, pi. We don't have special name for number
> 245.43234. An empty class with sole virtual destructor
> is such a special object. C++ allows RTTI iif class has a virtual
> function. So the easiest way to tell someone how to RTTI-enable his
> class would be to say: "Derive from rtti_base").
> class rtti_base
> Ireneusz Szpilewski
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
-- ________________ ::matus_chochlik
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk