2013/11/27 Niall Douglas
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.
I'd like to thank all the reviewers for giving advices and spending their time on review. I'll try to came up with a better version of TypeIndex soon. -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin