On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 11:46 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
Not as far as I know. However, all the restrictions and subtleties I read about virtual assignment operators make me think that no kind of operator should be (directly) virtual.Daryle Walker wrote:[Apologies to the computer scientist who came up with that phrase
(w.r.t. GOTOs)]
I haven't looked at the serialization library that was just up for
review, but some of the comments I saw on this list suggested that the
archive classes use virtual operators for reading or writing the basic
types. I have a book called _C++ FAQs_ (2nd ed.) that has a blurb about
a virtual assignment operator. I think the concept is too funky because:
1. You have no choice about an operator's interface, even if that
interface isn't the best for inheritance.
2. The dispatch interactions could introduce subtleties.
Is there virtual assignment operator anywhere in serialization lib?
This conclusion isn't from the review comments, just my gut feeling against virtual operators. As for implementing it, it looks like Robert has to redo his classes anyway....I have a better idea: use the "concrete function calls a virtual function" idiom. Maybe it could be like:Ehh... did you arrive to this conclusion based on reading review comments? I positively don't see any urgent need for this idiom, this would only make Robert change names everywhere.
Daryle
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
