On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:56:51 +0200, Gennaro Prota wrote: > Yes. Just to stimulate discussion, and without any offence towards > Daniel's solution, this is an approach without the conversion function > and the operator overloads. Beware that it's completely untested. > > [snip] > > It's not so "advanced" as it might appear at first sight. Maybe the > rigmarole above, together with the comments in the alternative solution, > is of some help to realize that the basic ideas are very simple.
I looked at the code and I see two problems: a) as<T>() is not generic, static_cast<T>() is. Why introduce a new syntax for an already known language construct? Is it just that you wanted to create some "explicit cast"? I suggested explicit casts in clc++m long time ago :) Note that in my design the template operator T() is as close to an explicit cast as you can get with todays C++ and still create a generic interface. as<T>() is IMHO not an option as other libraries will call it convert<T>(), explicit_cast<T>() or whatever. b) The "single line to create a useful interface" is now splittet into more lines. Why? It's a drawback and doesn't help the design in my eyes. I actually wonder what the code tries to do better. Removing the operators is not a big deal and I don't agree they should be removed, but I guess you had something else in mind when writing this code. Could you elaborate, please? Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
