Zitat von David Sankel <camior@gmail.com>:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Stefan Strasser <strasser@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
I'd be interested in comments on an introspection library I've been developing.
You may find paper "Scrap++: Scrap Your Boilerplate in C++"[1] to be interesting for ideas. One thing that confuses me about your library
thanks. (direct link: http://sms.cs.chalmers.se/publications/papers/2006-WGP.pdf ) do I understand the paper correctly that you can't traverse two instances of a type at the same time? that's a central part to my approach. the (const) traversal of a single instance could have been accomplished with the Serializable concept, but algorithms like copying or comparing objects could only be implemented very inefficiently by serialization.
is I don't know whether the reflections are semantic or syntactic. I do think a clear separation of syntax and semantics is important to writing clear code. Perhaps you can show what a shared_ptr "implementation of the concept" looks like?
it depends on the shared_ptr implementation if you'd actually implement introspect() for shared_ptr, but I guess you mean supporting shared_ptr in a specific algorithm. apply_recursive, which seems to be comparable to scrap++: template<class F,class Data,class T,class Semantics> void apply_recursive(F const &f,Data &data,shared_ptr<T> &ptr,Semantics){ if(ptr) intro::apply_member_recursive(f,data,*ptr,typename Semantics::indir_semantics()); } this function is found via ADL. apply_member_recursive calls f(*ptr), but only after polymorphic dispatch if needed, and after it has been checked that *ptr hasn't already been traversed, e.g. through another pointer.
Fusion's adapters, which are purely syntactic, are perfect for what I've needed so far. Syntactically speaking, are you adding anything besides data inheritance?
I'm not familiar with that distinction wrt reflection. Stefan