On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 4:48 PM Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> For places where what the OP is trying to do makes any kind of sense,
> I feel like storing a polymorphic<B> inside the any is the right way
> to go. The receiving code knows to expect a polymorphic value of a
> particular base class, and the sending code is obligated to use that
> kind of object.
>

Consider a class hierarchy of five classes:

class A {};
class B : public A {};
class C: public B {};
class D : public A {}
class E : public B {}

and three functions:

void foo(A&); // Knows how to handle all As
void bar(B&); // Knows how handle all Bs, but doesn't know how to handle Ds
void baz(C&); // Knows how to handle all Cs, but doesn't know how to handle
Es

I hope we can all agree that it would be bad practice for the authors of
bar() and baz() to change them to take A& and then dynamic_cast the input
to B& and C& respectively.

Then why would it be good practice, if we transform these functions to take
in an any* or any&, to force them to perform a widening any_cast to
polymorphic_value<A> followed by a dynamic_cast<B&> or dynamic_cast<C&>
respectively?

-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.