Boost logo

Boost :

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-26 16:48:57

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 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 ?
> There's some precedent for it. grep for BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS.

I didn't even realize that Boost catered to it although I should have since
I have dealt with Regex++ enough. OK, if you allow end-users to build parts
of Boost without exception handling, I guess you can allow end-users to
build parts of Boost without RTTI support. I admit that if I were a Boost
library implementor, I would find such limitations on my natural use of C++

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