"Rozental, Gennadiy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Even if none of the above looks sound for you I still argue that >> lexical_cast *should not force* inclusion of typeinfo. It's not >> "inconvinience" - it's showstopper. It's much more important >> than providing >> specific type info. In majority of the cases one knows it anyway. >> >> > Kevlin >> >> Gennadiy. > > So. Are we gonna stuck with typeinfo in lexical_cast? > > Could we have at least some discussion about this?
My contribution to the discussion is that I don't think supporting C++ language subsets is worth complicating the interface in the way you propose. Maybe lexical_cast<T*>(whatever) should return 0 on failure and that should be enough for those who can't handle the exceptions we want to throw... though I don't know how (or if) that interacts with things like char const*. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost