Re: [boost] [intrusive] rtti_base class proposition

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
<irek_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
> {
> public:
> ~rtti_base(){}
> }
>
> Ireneusz Szpilewski
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

-- 
________________
::matus_chochlik