Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure
From: Hite, Christopher (Christopher.Hite_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-07 12:54:18
> > 4) What about and any_base<> + any_derived<> ?
> > Based on several cases where I've seen/done type deletion a common pattern is to define a base class and a templated derived class.
> > boost::asio::detail::op_base+op
> I don't understand. If you want a
> base/templated derived class, the
> easiest thing is just to implement it
> that way.
I don't want to have to do it. Typically each time someone runs into one of these problems they do their type-deletion that way. Each time it's done for a particular use case, usually based on the signature of a callable concept.
If you want more examples of this:
asio::detail::descriptor_read_op => descriptor_read_op_base - deletes the handler type
descriptor_read_op_base =>reactor_op - deletes the buffer type
Could/would you do that more cleanly with an any<>? I think so.
If you're OK with heap storage, instead of holding a base* you can hold an any<..>.
I'm not so sure if you want control over the storage, though it looks like any<...,_self&> allows me to avoid the heap. There'd have to be an indirection more. I think it can be avoided by your library by exposing something you're forced to implement anyway.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk