From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-26 14:30:04
"Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Terje Slettebø wrote:
>>> From: "Rozental, Gennadiy" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]>
>>>> 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.
>>> 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
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