Re: [boost] [function] improvements/proposals

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] improvements/proposals
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-27 05:28:00

"joel falcou" <joel.falcou_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:4B88CC38.3050706_at_lri.fr...
> Didn't someone already propsoed variosu pactehs for that ?
> I remember this discussion + the fact we need to support function on no-RTTI 
> environments.

This support was added recently by Peter Dimov but it was done in a way to 
emulate RTTI when it is not provided by the compiler. While this is a welcome 
option (as just all options are) it is not the 'complete'/proper solution 
because we are still left with _forced_ usage of RTTI when the majority do not 
use it (many users of boost.function do not even know it exists).

I've been ranting about this frequently: if we only object a certain 
'issue'/'option'/'implementation detail' when it produces build errors we are 
not 'true' to the nature of the language that we are using as the 'language 
moto' states >>if you do not use it you do not _pay_ for it<< not 'if you use 
it you will be able to compile it' (as the latter is practically a tautology 
for any non-broken language)...
With that said, the correct solution would be to have the option to disable all 
the options one does not use and the compiler is not able to remove (e.g. all 
'features' that 'go through' function pointers, virtual functions and the 
likes...)...

--
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual 
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from 
one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman