Hi guys,
On 1/12/09 7:20 PM, Chris 'Xenon' Hanson wrote:
Thrall, Bryan wrote:
This seems overly complicated to me; couldn't we just rely on users
knowing the type they want for a given key, like we rely on them knowing
what subclass of UserData they want now? That way, UserPropertyContainer
Hi Ulrich et. al,
Comments at bottom of mail... but first some context for my comments :-)
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Ulrich Hertlein u.hertl...@sandbox.de wrote:
Agreed, maybe for basic data types we could use a simple Variant class:
class Variant : Referenced
{
public:
Variant()
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson wrote on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:06 AM:
I'm sort of thinking out loud, on (e-)paper here, so feel free to
shoot
holes in this design:
We design a class called something like CompositeUserData (I dislike
this
name, and prefer something like
Thrall, Bryan wrote:
This seems overly complicated to me; couldn't we just rely on users
knowing the type they want for a given key, like we rely on them knowing
what subclass of UserData they want now? That way, UserPropertyContainer
is simply an std::mapstring,ref_ptrReferenced . The
4 matches
Mail list logo
