On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Dave Abrahams <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:dave@boostpro.com">dave@boostpro.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
on Mon Oct 10 2011, Igor R &lt;<a href="http://boost.lists-AT-gmail.com" target="_blank">boost.lists-AT-gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im">&gt;&gt; Yeah, as long as you&#39;re doing that with a runtime test, your only option<br>
&gt;&gt; is to use some kind of type erasure (boost::any, polymorphic base class, etc).<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Or Boost.Variant.<br>
<br>
</div>(which is what I meant by etc.)<br>
<br>
I think if you are going to use type erasure, Igor&#39;s suggestion is<br>
probably the approach most suited to a metaprogrammed system.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote></div><br>Thank you for your suggestions.<br><br>It seems that one way or the other I&#39;ll have to bite the bullet and use (at least partially) a more traditional approach in my application. It all started when I saw that to avoid duplicating information among my classes I created a complex inheritance hierarchy. I didn&#39;t like it and I decided to try using some generative programming techniques to build my classes at compile-time. So far so good but then I was facing all kind of other problems like how to store these heterogeneous objects in containers or, like in the example above, mix run-time and compile-time tests...<br>
<br>