Hello all,

we have identified several issues concerning C++ mapping in TCI. For example
proposed classes don't follow interface pattern as declared in chapter
10.5 - classes derived from TciValue don't use public virtual inheritance
etc.
How should we proceed with these issues?
It is possible to implement C++ mapping defined in current specification
only by breaching common C++ coding rules (like using reinterpret cast on
polymorphic objects instead of dynamic cast etc.).
We could make the list of problems and propose corrections.

BR,
Andrus & Tom
Elvior

Hello



It would be nice if you can provide all issues you have found instead of a
sample. Maybe you can write a CR with your proposal.



About your first comment, our position is that TCI data must have public
inheritance from abstract base classes. We really think that private
inheritance is not needed and the interface document should be changed.
Regarding virtual inheritance, we are also convinced that it's not necessary
because the base classes are abstract.



About the second point, we think that reinterpret casts are the least safe
form of cast and should not be used to cast down a class hierarchy and this
could be avoided if the inheritance would be public ( using dynamic cast).



Best regards,

Juan Paradinas Saenz de Viteri

Project leader



Pº de la Castellana, 182 - 10ª planta

28046 - Madrid

Tel.: +34 913531564

Fax: +34 913596179

<www.mtp.es> www.mtp.es

Hi all,

please find attached file with issues and proposed fixes for C++ language mapping. I'm not sure if I should make a new CR or add comment to existing one at t-ort.etsi.org/view.php?id=5220.

BR,
Andrus
Elvior