Jon Kalb wrote:
> On 2003-02-11 8:47 PM, "Philippe A. Bouchard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
> This is as I suspected.
>
> I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a compile time error in this
> situation rather than to create a trap for the unsuspecting. It does
> put an additional burden on the user to ensure that the types are
> indeed polymorphic, but I think they have that burden in any case.
> The currently implementation allows them to be blissfully ignorant of
> this situation.
>
> I appreciate that your library will document that it only works for
> polymorphic types, but I fear that to be an insufficient prophylactic.
Well in fact, the following assignment could be verified at compile-time
with some smart_ptr<> checking policy:
class A { char c; };
class B { char c; };
class C : public A, public B { char c; };
smart_ptr<C> pC = new C;
smart_ptr<A> pA = pC; // Ok.
smart_ptr<B> pA = new C; // Ok.
smart_ptr<B> pB = pC; // Generate compile-time error.
Philippe A. Bouchard
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
