RE: [Boost-Users] Re: boost::polymorphic_upcast suggestion

Hi, I feel I have to jump on this one ;-) Jean, I think you have this one backwards I'm afraid, take your example (stripped down a bit)

-----Original Message----- From: news [mailto:news@main.gmane.org]On Behalf Of Jean Llorca Sent: 27 June 2002 15:31 To: boost-users@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Boost-Users] Re: boost::polymorphic_upcast suggestion

"Darin Adler" a écrit dans le message de news: B586F909-89D7-11D6-9349-0003935B80A2@bentspoon.com...

...

On Thursday, June 27, 2002, at 06:38 AM, Jean Llorca wrote:

...

Here upcasting means casting a base class to a derived class, I know it may seem strange, bust boost offers a downcast which does the static_cast the language does implicitly already (check ).

I think you've got it backwards. Downcasting, in Boost at least, means casting a pointer to a base class part of an object to a pointer to a derived class part of the same object. The polymorphic_downcast is *not* doing a static_cast for a conversion the language already does implicitly.

template inline Target polymorphic_downcast(Source* x BOOST_EXPLICIT_DEFAULT_TARGET) { assert( dynamic_cast<Target>(x) == x ); // detect logic error return static_cast<Target>(x); }

Sorry about it, but it's here in the code. This is in the last version of the CVS. It does a static_cast. The compiler does static_cast implicitly in some cases. For instance a C++ compiler replaces the assert line with: assert( dynamic_cast<Target>(x) == static_cast<Target>(x) );

...

Could you give a specific complete example (a file that would compile, with all the declarations) of how one would use what you're proposing to help make this clearer?

I enclosed two files to this reply. Don't scream about chosen class names and stuff in the example ;)