On 26 Nov 2013 at 7:28, Andrey Semashev wrote:
I am still struggling to understand the merit of your argument. All [snip] That's your assumption of its implementation. And it is one way to implement it, indeed, but not the only one. My point is that type_infos are equivalent only if type_info::operator== returns true and not necessarily when strcmp(type_info::name(), type_info::name()) returns 0. The standard doesn't give you that guarantee. [snip] The code that uses this concept is not portable and should not be advertised in Boost, IMO.
I think I now understand the source of this confusion - I see Boost as mostly a set of hacks around unhelpful compiler and platform deficiencies - it's basically a giant portability toolkit for me so I can write one set of code and Boost hides the evil that must go on underneath. I think you see Boost as more a staging ground for ISO standards, and hence you're thinking code ought to adhere to the standard rather than contemporary necessities of present toolset and platform exigencies. Neither interpretation is wrong. Nor is either right. But I think I get you now Andrey. Useful discussion. Happy Thanksgiving! Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/