From: Alberto Barbati (abarbati_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-15 17:37:35
Vahan Margaryan wrote:
> Eric Woodruff wrote:
>>type_info is not portable in the slightest.
> I realize that. I just pointed out that it's not so convenient to have
> user-supplied string ids because of the template classes.
As pointed out by Robert, the user-supplied string id could be made
optional. For the lazy user we might imagine a default value obtained in
some programmatic way, for example a possibly pre-processed
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk