Subject: Re: [boost] An alternative approach to TypeErasure
From: Pyry Jahkola (pyry.jahkola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-24 18:55:58
On 2012-06-24 14:21:32 +0000, Steven Watanabe said:
> I don't think your approach is fundamentally
> very different from mine.
Not fundamentally. But what do you think about the API of my library? I
found it easier to understand when you see the "member" functions
almost as is in the template arguments, and you don't have to invent
names like ostreamable for some more domain-specific functions.
> The way you handle template arguments
> to poly::interface makes it impossible to
> create this kind of mutually recursive any.
Hmm, that's right. But I'm a bit puzzled by not being able to think of
a good real-world example of such problem.
-- Pyry Jahkola pyry.jahkola_at_[hidden] https://twitter.com/pyrtsa
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk