Hi Frank, No, I did not compile the OOo yet. I have only recompile our product which was developed completely upon URE. It seems that is compatible with existing code well.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rainman, > >> I have another ideal, it is better and safer than the last one I mentioned. >> I add a conversion operator to Reference, instead of a constructor, here is >> it: >> >> template < class base_interface_type > >> inline SAL_CALL operator const Reference< base_interface_type > () >> const SAL_THROW( () ) >> { return Reference< base_interface_type >( get() ); } >> >> I tested some cases, and it works well. >> How do you think it? I am not very sure it will work for all situation. > > Uhm - implicit conversion operators are Evil (TM) :) > > This is a place where my gut feeling says we should sacrifice the little > convenience we could gain (xA = xB instead of xA = xB.get()) for > clarity. At least clarity in reading code, but also clarity in reading > the error messages which the compiler would raise for incompatible xA > and xB :) > > Admittedly, this feeling is not backed up by strong arguments, but I am > sure others could come up with some. Stephan? > > Btw, did you compile the complete OOo from scratch with this change? > Would be interesting to know whether the existing code already survives it. > > Ciao > Frank > > -- > - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [email protected] - > - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - > - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
