From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-26 13:41:10
>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.
> > > 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.
Using policies may complicate the interface, and from earlier discussions,
and also from the earlier "Future directions" part of the docs, it turned
out that adding new parameters weren't deemed acceptable (due to it no
longer looking like a cast in that case).
Another way may be a macro. However, as has been mentioned in this thread,
it appears that the config macros aren't geared for macros with optional
exclusion of RTTI.
Then one might have a lexical_cast specific macro for it, like
BOOST_LEXICAL_CAST_USE_RTTI, like you suggested.
Kevlin or others, any thoughts?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk