From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-07 14:46:38
Fred Bertsch wrote:
> Second, there isn't as much type safety as there could be in a lot of
> these classes. For example, shared_message_queue does not have a
> template parameter to determine what is stored in the queue. Instead,
> its send and receive member functions take void*'s. Is there a good
> reason for this? I suppose another process could use the same
> shared_message_queue with another type, but I'd really like to see
> some type safety within the same process.
Moving a reinterpret_cast from user code, where it's visible, to the queue
implementation, where it's hidden, decreases type safety instead of
increasing it. A typed interface is only meaningful if the queue enforces
type safety, perhaps by encoding the type (and ideally the compiler version)
somehow.