From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-26 05:49:07
Hi Jody
First of all: Many thanks for taking care of this!
> SUMMARY: I would like to delay proposing a typeid() replacement.
> Instead, I'd like to submit my testsuite, and ask people to run it on
> various platforms and report the results. This will help us decide
> how
> best to approach this seemingly simple, but very difficult, subject.
> I
> would like to propose a boost::type_info class now (or very soon).
> Meaningful instances of boost::type_info will be constructed from a
> std::type_info resulting from a native typeid() call. Once we figure
> out what route to take wrt typeid(), then I think it can be used in a
> very straight forward manner.
This looks like a good plan. FWIW, I don't currently care whether the
boost::type_info is implemented in terms of std::type_info (and
therefore necessarily exposes the non-standardness of the underlying
platform) or a sophisticated technique to emulate standard behavior. My
uses of typeid are so limited that I can easily avoid the bugs of the
platforms I care for. In other words, I only need std::type_info with
comparison operators. Other proposed libraries seem to have similar
needs.
Regards,
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.