Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-30 18:20:40
AMDG
On 05/29/2012 03:04 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
> on Tue May 22 2012, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Online documentation can be found here:
>> http://steven_watanabe.users.sourceforge.net/type_erasure/libs/type_erasure/
>
> http://steven_watanabe.users.sourceforge.net/type_erasure/libs/type_erasure/doc/html/boost_typeerasure/multi.html
> says:
>
> The types of the arguments must match or the behavior is undefined.
>
> I presume you mean that the dynamic, erased types must match?
> (presumably you could easily prevent the use of different static types at
> compile-time). IMO it's crucial that you be rigorous about these
> distinctions in your documentation.
>
I've tried to clarify this.
> I wonder if undefined behavior is really the best possible choice here.
> I honestly don't know what's most useful. Do you have a rationale for
> your choice?
>
It's impossible to enforce this statically,
so the only alternative is to throw an
exception. I do provide a mode that does
this. By default the library assumes that
you've made sure that the types match.
If you add relaxed_match, it will check
whether the arguments match and if they
don't, either fall back on some reasonable
default behavior or throw.
In Christ,
Steven Watanabe