Re: [boost] xml?

Subject: Re: [boost] xml?
From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-09 12:38:40

On 04/09/2010 12:34 PM, Larry Evans wrote:
> On 04/09/10 10:48, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
>> Larry Evans wrote:
>>
>>> What is there about the XPath specification that makes any type
>>> hierarchy for modelling it less suitable than using something
>>> akin to boost.variant?
>>>
>>> You see, I'm wondering because using type hierarchies and
>>> virtual functions has been touted as a great advantage of
>>> OO programming; yet, it apparently lacks something which
>>> you need.  I'd like to understand what that is.
>>
>> Some could argue that the point of a base class is moot if you have 
>> to downcast it to make anything useful with it,
>
> But boost.variant has to do the equivalent of downcasting based on
> discriminant (the value returned by which()).

No, accessing a member of a union is not really a cast, neither 
conceptually nor technically.

     Stefan

-- 
       ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...