David Abrahams said: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> I'm very interested in having a reflection library available, but I >>> can't afford any time to helping with the work, sorry. However, I'd >>> suggest you take into consideration XTI, which is an idea for >>> reflection in C++ from Bjarne Stroustrup (there's several links to >>> this on the web, one of which is >>> http://www.klid.dk/arrangementer/XTI_kbh.pdf, do a Google search for >>> the others). I think his work on it has stagnated, at least from >>> some things I've heard from others, which is unfortunate. But I >>> think his work would be a great place to start from for a Boost >>> reflection framework. >> >> I'm definitely looking into this. After educating myself, I was >> planning on contacting BS about the current status of his project. If >> anyone happens to know more information, or is in a position to find >> out more, please do so and/or let me know. TIA. > > FWIW, I don't think it would be smart to put *too* many eggs in this > basket. Because XTI is based on debug symbol information, it is > neccessarily limited in certain ways that a full-compiler-based > solution is not. For example, I'm fairly certain that some details > unneccessary for debugging like access control > (public/private/protected) are dropped.
That sounds reasonable to me, be XTI does have a lot of nice interface designs that could still be the starting point for a Boost effort. William E. Kempf _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
