"Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Terje Slettebų wrote: >>> From: "Rozental, Gennadiy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>>> 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? >> >> I'd certainly be open to make the type_info part optional. A question >> is how to do it. > > Type_info is part of the C++ standard. I don't understand the turning off of > this in C++ code, but even it is done for an implementation, I don't think > that Boost should now have to worry about not supporting it in a library > because end-users can turn it off. Should Boost stop using exceptions in > order to accomodate those who can turn off exception handling in their C++ > implementations as some implementations allow ?
There's some precedent for it. grep for BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost