On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:20:32 +0300, Alex Rønne Petersen
<xtzgzo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23-10-2011 14:51, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:06:42 +0300, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch>
wrote:
I don't see how my generateReflectionForModule idea requires any
modification of the reflected code. The module can generate RTTI for
all
types used recursively from the starting point. If more precision is
needed, it can be specified as generateReflectionForModule/etc.
parameters.
The module can generate RTTI for all types recursively from the
starting point iff that information is statically available. It does
not have to be. A module that comes as .di + static library binary
could return a reference to a private class that has a publicly
exported base class. How would you generate RTTI for a statically
invisible class?
The only way to prevent such problems is to have RTTI generated by the
compiler and enabled always or by default.
However, is such functionality even desirable? It is equivalent to
having a back door for accessing private class members (implementation
details in general).
Isn't that technically already possible by doing enough cast and pointer
arithmetic hacks? I don't think it really makes a difference. If someone
really wants to backdoor a type, they will find a way to do it.
Yes, but that's neither "safe" nor an actual language feature. Allowing
RTTI to do the same would be both: my point was whether there should be a
language feature for this (exploring unexposed types).
--
Best regards,
Vladimir mailto:vladi...@thecybershadow.net
