Boost logo

Boost :

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-26 14:22:08

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.
>>>> 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.

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 ? The same goes for any other
part of the C++ standard. It's the end-users problem if they turn off
something in their implementations, and then can't use it, which is part of
the C++ standard. OTOH I do understand completely the great effort Boost has
made to accomodate implementations which just don't support some area of the
C++ standard completely. But I view the two issues as completely separate.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at