C / C++ / MFC

struct x st;

// Function gets nothing because of casting
read ((void*)&st);

// Here we have this structure, so the function does not disturb
// Information about the structure, perhaps we don't have it just in 
// the function.
st.a=5;

// Call read.
read((void*)&st); // This cast throws away type information.
 
void read(void* pData)
{
     x* pX = (x*)pData; // This cast "recovers" the type info.
     // Do stuff here...
}

int data;
read((void*)&data);

mySetting.Save(/*in*/(void*)settings);
mySetting.Load(/*out*/(void*)settings)

// Types to load/save
int Type1;
double Type2;
MyStruct Type3;
 
// To save
mySettings.Save(Type1);
mySettings.Save(Type2);
mySettings.Save(Type3);
 
// To load
mySettings.Load(Type1);
mySettings.Load(Type2);
mySettings.Load(Type3);

class CSettings
{
public;
 // Other stuff here.
 
     template<class T> void Save(T& SaveMe)
     {
         SaveTheData(reinterpret_cast<void*>(&SaveMe), sizeof(SaveMe));
     }
     template<class T> void Load(T& LoadMe)
     {
         LoadTheData(reinterpret_cast<void*>(&LoadMe), sizeof(LoadMe));
     }
 
 // Other stuff here.
};

Hamed Mosavi wrote:

So, it seems that I should forget getting such information!,hoping "C/C++" designers think about this issue on later standards!! (If they think about it's usage, it's great usage to create independent classes or functions)

Hamed Mosavi wrote:

Furthermore, why giving information about a data type at compile time is not suitable for C/C++ ?

"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow