![]() |
Boost : |
From: ÐмиÑÑий ÐÑÑ
ипов (grisumbras_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-05-03 08:47:05
ÑÑ, 1 Ð¼Ð°Ñ 2025â¯Ð³. в 01:03, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]>:
>
> Even if this was true, this is not necessarily an argument in favour of
> open methods. You can also have a non-intrusive polymorphism on class
> hierarchies, as proposed in P2688R5 (pattern matching) and implemented in
> Mach7 (https://github.com/solodon4/Mach7).
> ...
> The authors of N2216 (open methods) then switched to N3449 (pattern
> matching), as a more practical and safer solution to the same problem: you
> get the non-intrusive polymorphism and a guaranteed static checking.
Andrzej, if you don't find the time to write a review please still
elaborate on this point in a regular post, I find it very interesting.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk