Subject: Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++?
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-04 14:33:34
On 4 June 2010 12:40, Bartlett, Roscoe A <rabartl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Okay, the runtime vs. compile-time polymorphism debate is another issue (but a very important one).
You can split the polymorphism situations into 2 types:
1) Those with consistent types and
2) Those that require different types
For (2), runtime polymorphism doesn't work. For (1), it can be coded
as static polymorphism, then a single type erasure layer can be easily
written (with an abstract base "interface" class and an
"implementation" class template) that adapts the static classes for
So why wouldn't I just write everything as static, then apply the
erasure layer at the level appropriate for my application, if needed?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk