From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-26 15:09:44
> 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
> 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).
That's is not exactly true since third parameter will have a default value.
So in default case you wont see a difference.
> 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.
No. this has nothing to do with config
> Then one might have a lexical_cast specific macro for it, like
> BOOST_LEXICAL_CAST_USE_RTTI, like you suggested.
We may need this macro even policy based solution would be chosen (only for
convinience). See my previos post
And again if I am right and RTTI has runtime overhead whatever decision we
will make I prefer not to force typeinfo inclusion. User has to have an
option this way or another.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk