Re: [boost] [TypeIndex] Peer review period for library acceptance begins, ending Thurs 21st Nov

Subject: Re: [boost] [TypeIndex] Peer review period for library acceptance begins, ending Thurs 21st Nov
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-21 10:57:02

2013/11/21 Jan Herrmann <jherrmann79_at_[hidden]>

> Only from reading documentation I have a few questions:
>
> 1. In http://apolukhin.github.io/type_index/boost_typeindex/
> examples.html#boost_typeindex.examples.getting_through_the_inheritance_is written that polymorphic types can't be identified without RTTI. It
> should be possible for a library user to make his types compatible with
> Boost.TypeIndex to identify them. For example he can return
> boost::type_info from a virtual function inside each class:
>
> struct A {
>   virtual ~A(){}
>   virtual boost::type_info const& get_boost_type_info() const {
>     return boost::type_id<A>());
>   }
> };
> struct B: public A {
>   virtual boost::type_info const& get_boost_type_info() const {
>     return boost::type_id<B>());
>   }
> };
> struct C: public B {
>   virtual boost::type_info const& get_boost_type_info() const {
>     return boost::type_id<C>());
>   }
> };
>
> Boost.TypeIndex should provide a way to use such methods inside
> boost::type_id_rtti_only. Is something like this planned?
>

This looks like a *very* good addition, thanks for the idea! This will be
implemented as soon as possible (before the next review).

> 2. As far as I understand almost everything inside the library is build on
> top of string comparison. All these strings are available at compile time.
> Are there plans to make boost::template_info a literal type? It would help
> with metaprogramming to have a system representing types with the same set
> of operations and behavior at compile time and run time (I think of sorting
> classes at compile time, store boost::template_info of them in an array and
> use some binary search at run time).
>

This can be interesting. That feature will be implemented, however I do not
see how this could be possible to do in C++03/C++98.

> 3. What are he exact reasons for storing types with const, volatile and
> reference in  boost::type_id_with_cvr?
> As long as there is no way to query this information and remove it at run
> time I think it would better users store them together with type_index if
> the need this feature. It could result in hard to find errors when users
> use type_if_with_cvr in one module and not expecting them in another.
>

This is done for libraries that use type erasure technique a lot. Sometimes
there may be a need to store those modifiers (there was an example in
examples section for that case:
http://apolukhin.github.io/type_index/boost_typeindex/examples.html#boost_typeindex.examples.exact_type_match_storing_type_wi)

There must be no problems with mixing boost::type_id_with_cvr and
boost::type_id. If there are no modifiers, result will be the same:

boost::type_id_with_cvr<int>() == boost::type_id<int>()
boost::type_id_with_cvr<user_defined>() == boost::type_id<user_defined>()

Or am I missing some use case?

-- 
Best regards,
Antony Polukhin