Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Checking interest in std::get for PODs
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-04 09:07:18

On 6/4/2016 8:41 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Le 03/06/2016 à 22:38, Edward Diener a écrit :
>> On 6/3/2016 4:01 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>> Le 03/06/2016 à 14:40, Oswin Krause a écrit :
>>>> Hi,
>>>>> What are the practical benefits of being able to access PODS by index
>>>>> as opposed to using a tuple instead ?
>>>> names with a proper semantic are a huge plus compared to tuples. Such
>>>> a structure could be helpful in serializing simple data structures
>>>> automatically.
>>> I would add that threre are existing PODs types in any application. With
>>> this library you can have comparison, streaming, hash and any function
>>> working heterogeneous containers almost for free.
>>> There is something that I would like the library make easier: opt-in for
>>> a tuple-like access in addition to a flat_tuple-like access.
>> Okay, I can understand that. For new libraries if I wanted what
>> magic_get offered I would simply use tuples. But I do understand that
>> there are many people still happily using PODs in their code that want
>> what magic_get offers.
> If you need to interact with C-libraries you can not choose :)

What, C doesn't have tuples yet ? <g>

I program in C++. Personally I have left C far behind. Bjarne and Linus
not withstanding, I think C++ as a language should be less backward
accomodating to C and move forward on its own more.

I do understand that PODs are still attractive as data types. Therefore
I think that magic_get would be a nice addition to Boost.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at