Re: [boost] Peer Review Report for proposed Boost.TypeIndex v2.1 Nov 12th – 21st 2013

Subject: Re: [boost] Peer Review Report for proposed Boost.TypeIndex v2.1 Nov 12th – 21st 2013
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-27 02:13:55

On 26 Nov 2013 at 7:28, Andrey Semashev wrote:

> > I am still struggling to understand the merit of your argument. All
> [snip]
> That's your assumption of its implementation. And it is one way to implement 
> it, indeed, but not the only one. My point is that type_infos are equivalent 
> only if type_info::operator== returns true and not necessarily when 
> strcmp(type_info::name(), type_info::name()) returns 0. The standard doesn't 
> give you that guarantee.
> [snip]
> The code that uses this concept is not portable and should not be advertised 
> in Boost, IMO.

I think I now understand the source of this confusion - I see Boost 
as mostly a set of hacks around unhelpful compiler and platform 
deficiencies - it's basically a giant portability toolkit for me so I 
can write one set of code and Boost hides the evil that must go on 
underneath. I think you see Boost as more a staging ground for ISO 
standards, and hence you're thinking code ought to adhere to the 
standard rather than contemporary necessities of present toolset and 
platform exigencies.

Neither interpretation is wrong. Nor is either right. But I think I 
get you now Andrey. Useful discussion. Happy Thanksgiving!

Niall

-- 
Currently unemployed and looking for work.
Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/