David Abrahams wrote: > "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.
I didn't even realize that Boost catered to it although I should have since I have dealt with Regex++ enough. OK, if you allow end-users to build parts of Boost without exception handling, I guess you can allow end-users to build parts of Boost without RTTI support. I admit that if I were a Boost library implementor, I would find such limitations on my natural use of C++ annoying. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
