"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "Eric Woodruff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > * shared_*_cast will be renamed to sp_*_cast.
>> >
>> > Why? Without rationale, this seems like a gratuitous change,
>> > especailly since "sp" doesn't mean much to me.
>> >
>>
>> Agreed. "sp" is so wonderfully expressive. Actually, I was going to voice
> a
>> complaint of that, but the ideal would overload dynamic_cast, but since it
>> is a language keyword, that can't happen. So I can kind of see sp_ as a
>> work-around for that.
>
> True, but consider also that dynamic_cast has a different interface:
>
> template<class Target, class Source> Target dynamic_cast(Source);
>
> so even if we could overload it, the syntax would have been
>
> shared_ptr<Y> py;
> shared_ptr<X> px = dynamic_cast< shared_ptr<X> >(py);
>
>> Alternatively, it could be named boost_dynamic_cast
>> and put in the global namespace, where it can be overloaded as needed by
>> boost.
>
> This doesn't look too good if you consider the possible boost->std
> transition. :-)
But "sp" does? <wink>
How about dynamic_pointer_cast<T>(x)?
Of course, we can make it work for regular pointers, too.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
