Re: [boost] Interest in specialized types

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in specialized types
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-27 15:28:43

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henning Basold" <h.basold_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in specialized types

> 
>  Am 24.09.2010 12:31, schrieb vicente.botet:

>> Before refactoring the Opaque implementation, I wanted to know if you have worked on your proposal.
>>
> Hi,
> 
> I am sorry to say but I haven't. I'm in the middle of writing my 
> bachelor thesis so I don't have a lot of time right now. But my brains 
> works despite the body has no time :) So I have some ideas for use cases 
> but no time to write them down.
> 
> I see you have already integrated the idea into Opaque. So the basics 
> are already there. Are you satisfied with it and is there anything to do 
> in this area. Else I would use my time (if I should have some ;)) on 
> extending the idea.

Yes, I have integrated your ideas into Opaque after posting this message. Your approach allows to define opaque types fpr underlying UDT :) I hope both approaches are now well integrated.

I have reached to implement a transitive conversion, either implicit for public opaque type or explicit for private opaque types. I gues these kind of transitive conversion could also be used for new_types that are more restrictive than opaque types.
 
> PS: The concept could for example be used to implement a generalized 
> type erasure which could be used in a type safe manner.

I don't understand completly. Could you explain a little more?

Thanks,
Vicente