Re: Re: Registries [2]

At 15:12 2003-07-31, David Abrahams wrote:
>Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > At 03:08 2003-07-31, David Abrahams wrote:
> >>Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > At 00:25 2003-07-31, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>This seems to me to be the killer argument against having any implicit
> >> >>imports of from-xxx converters.  No?
> >> >
> >> > Well, yeah.. Unfortunately the same argument applies to the
> >> > cast-graph too.
> >>
> >>:(
> >
> > But we can still share the code though, right?
>
>Sure.
>
> > I already made the local registry into a singleton, so we'd just do
> > the same for the inheritance-code and link registry<T>::instance()
> > and inheritance_graph::instance() statically.
>
>And how would two extensions share a cast-graph?

They wouldn't. Perhaps it would be possible to share subgraph's without
duplicating the data, but I don't know.

Or did you mean how it would be related to importing? In that case I guess
we'd just import all reachable vertices from the vertex associated with
the imported type..

---
Daniel Wallin



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01