----- Original Message ----- From: "Henning Basold" <h.basold@googlemail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in specialized types
Am 24.09.2010 12:31, schrieb vicente.botet:
Before refactoring the Opaque implementation, I wanted to know if you have worked on your proposal.
Hi,
I am sorry to say but I haven't. I'm in the middle of writing my bachelor thesis so I don't have a lot of time right now. But my brains works despite the body has no time :) So I have some ideas for use cases but no time to write them down.
I see you have already integrated the idea into Opaque. So the basics are already there. Are you satisfied with it and is there anything to do in this area. Else I would use my time (if I should have some ;)) on extending the idea.
Yes, I have integrated your ideas into Opaque after posting this message. Your approach allows to define opaque types fpr underlying UDT :) I hope both approaches are now well integrated. I have reached to implement a transitive conversion, either implicit for public opaque type or explicit for private opaque types. I gues these kind of transitive conversion could also be used for new_types that are more restrictive than opaque types.
PS: The concept could for example be used to implement a generalized type erasure which could be used in a type safe manner.
I don't understand completly. Could you explain a little more? Thanks, Vicente