Re: [boost] Re: A replacement to any_cast

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-09 16:08:44

From: "Yuval Ronen" <ronen_yuval_at_[hidden]>
> 
> > > Wouldn't it be nicer if class any will have a member method like:
> > >
> > >     template <typename T>
> > >     T get() const;
> > >
> > > or maybe even:
> > >
> > >     template <typename T>
> > >     const T& get() const;
> > >     template <typename T>
> > >     T& get();
> >
> > So you'd prefer writing this:
> >
> >    boost::any<...> a(...);
> >    int i(a.template get<int>());
> >
> > to this?
> >
> >    boost::any<...> a(...);
> >    int i(any_cast<int>(a));
> >
> > The latter has the advantage of looking just like static_cast et
> > al, avoiding the ugly template qualification of the member
> > function invocation, and being shorter.
> 
> I blieve this a matter of point of view. I think of it as "extracting the
> inner object" within the any object, so get() sounds more intuitive. I'd
> much rather writing something like:
>     int a = some_any.get<int>();

But you can't.  You have to write the following, as I showed
above:

   int a = some_any.template get<int>();

> You think of it as a cast so any_cast sounds better to you. My guess that
> neither of us will be able to convince the other, so I'll suggest some sort
> of compromise: why don't we have both?

Do you still like your version?

Yes, I think cast fits quite nicely, but I hate forcing the use
of the "template" qualifier in function calls when I can avoid
it.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;