AMDG Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard <at> ens-lyon.org> writes:
Steven Watanabe wrote:
After 6+ months I've finally gotten back to this. I'd like to get some feedback on my ideas before I continue. The current version is in the vault.
The basic interface is derived from Alexander Nasonov's dynamic_any
struct increment : concept_<increment, void(_&)> { template<class T> static void execute(T& t) { ++t; } }
any<increment> x(1); increment()(x); assert(type_erasure::any_cast<int>(x) == 1);
Doesn't adobe::poly provide similar things but with way nicer interfaces?
a) I'm not entirely convinced that adobe::poly's interfaces are nicer. Would you mind elaborating. If you mean that adobe allows ++x instead of increment()(x), I provide a template that can be specialized to enable such usage, too. poly's interface is optimized for interfaces that have many functions grouped together. Mine is optimized for having many independent functions. In terms of the amount of boilerplate, it's about a toss-up. b) I support multiple independent functions in such a way that any<increment, decrement> can be converted to any<increment> or any<decrement> or any<> without adding a layer of indirection. c) adobe::poly relies on undefined behavior to implement the small object optimization. (It assumes that a single base class is allocated at the beginning of the object). As far as I know, it is impossible to implement the small object optimization in a standard conformant way without either changing the interface away from virtual functions or adding an extra pointer to the poly<> object or having double indirection for the virtual table. In Christ, Steven Watanabe