From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-26 14:17:42
"Rozental, Gennadiy" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> 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
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk