Peter, Can I infer anything about your intentions from your questions below? Is there any chance of getting public-interface deleter introspection?
just-trying-to-plan-ly y'rs, Dave David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> [get_deleter] >> >>> I think that considering the alternatives require: >>> >>> 1. Periodic map sweeps (we might as well be doing GC ;->), or >>> >>> 2. Solving the constructor forwarding problem for tacking on >>> additional data to the pointed-to class >>> >>> IMO it's worth giving serious consideration to deleter >>> introspection. >> >> Looks like I have to apply my mad "diligent reader" skills to the above. >> > <snip> >> >> Correct? > > Yep, you got mad skills. > >> Now the interface questions. >> >> Q: Why a free function? A: a member would require the p.template >> get_deleter<D>() syntax when p is dependent on a template parameter. > > That's one answer. There's also p.get_deleter(type<D>). Either one is > slightly ugly. But mostly I suggested a free function because it was > what came to mind. > >> Q: Why use a generic 'get_deleter' name for the free function? A: ??? > > Heh. I suggest that it /not/ be intended for invocation via Koenig > Lookup, so the name would be OK. > > There is another option, of course: make it a class template, like > boost::python::extract. Since introspection is a two-phase process > anyway, maybe that's better. > > -- > David Abrahams > [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com > Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution -- 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
