on Wed Jun 13 2012, "Simonson, Lucanus J" <lucanus.j.simonson-AT-intel.com> wrote:
Dave Abrahams wrote:
that the scope of TypeErasure was to replace inheritance–based polymorphism whenever possible.
That's definitely one useful way to apply it.
I would say the scope of the library is to provide (type safe) runtime polymorphism whenever inheritance-based polymorphism is not possible.
Seriously? So, you would dispense with boost/std::function because an inheritance-based approach is possible?
I'd question the value of replacing legacy inheritance based type systems with TypeErasure based type system for its own sake.
I don't think I ever suggested that one should do that. Although, if you have the time, it would make an interesting experiment, and might even show overall value.
It needs to enable something worthwhile or I'd rather the developer effort go elsewhere. I'm not disagreeing with Dave, I'm just saying its usefulness needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Sure. For new code, it's reasonable to consider a value-based paradigm in lieu of legacy inheritance paradigms. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com