Boost logo

Boost Users :

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Unique parameter values for interfaces
From: Ryan McConnehey (mccorywork_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-07 21:23:21

Peter Bartlett wrote:
> In addition to tagging, you can also look into whether true_typedef is
> suitable. Matthew Wilson's STLSoft has an implementation.

true_typedef seems like a really good choice. I'm unclear what the
STLSOFT_GEN_OPAQUE macro really provides. The macro is defined as follows.

#define STLSOFT_GEN_OPAQUE (type) typedef struct
__stlsoft_htype##type{ int i; } const* type;

So to use the STLSoft version I have to use the macro and then provide
the typedef. It would look like this.

typedef stlsoft::true_typedef<std::string, ConfigName_u> ConfigName;

How is this better than just declaring a struct in the typedef itself.
It would look like this.

typedef stlsoft::true_typedef<std::string, struct ConfigName_u>

What does having a pointer to a struct provide that a normal struct doesn't?


Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at