From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-02 22:29:31
Dave Harris wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <20DCDD8F0FCED411AC4D001083CF504501AA9741_at_MTL-EXCHANGE>
> sseefeld_at_[hidden] (Stefan Seefeld) wrote (abridged):
>>Out of curiosity: why would anybody not use RTTI ? Why shouldn't
>>compilers without RTTI just considered broken ?
> In particular, VC++ ships with MFC, which has its own hand-rolled
> solution. If you use that, you may not want the overhead of RTTI.
And speaking of VC, another reason, which is the one I turn it off for,
is that RTTI is implemented differently by each compiler/runtime (VC vs.
CW for me). So if you are trying to write compiler interoperable code
turning it off lets you ensure that you don't use that incompatible feature.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk