Wouldn't it be nicer if class any will have a member method like:
template <typename T> T get() const;
or maybe even:
template <typename T> const T& get() const; template <typename T> T& get();
So you'd prefer writing this:
boost::any<...> a(...); int i(a.template get<int>());
to this?
boost::any<...> a(...); int i(any_cast<int>(a));
The latter has the advantage of looking just like static_cast et al, avoiding the ugly template qualification of the member function invocation, and being shorter.
I think the current approach is better.
I blieve this a matter of point of view. I think of it as "extracting the inner object" within the any object, so get() sounds more intuitive. I'd much rather writing something like: int a = some_any.get<int>(); You think of it as a cast so any_cast sounds better to you. My guess that neither of us will be able to convince the other, so I'll suggest some sort of compromise: why don't we have both? The get() method(s) will be used by weird people like me who want to "extract the value/reference of the inner object", while the any_cast will be used by all the rest. If you'll implement the any_cast using the new get() method(s), you'll get some more benefits, such as removing the 'friend any_cast' and possibly removing the const_cast from one of the any_cast<>s. It's just my opinion, Yuval