Re: [boost] [function] should it require rtti?

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] should it require rtti?
From: Doug Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-03 17:49:03

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Peter
Foelsche<peter_foelsche_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> "Doug Gregor" <doug.gregor_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:24b520d20907231123u1f71b719y7523f1e17aac42e5_at_mail.gmail.com...
>>
>> Function needs to work when RTTI is not available. It's acceptable for
>
>
> why would RTTI not be available?
> What exactly forces you to switch off RTTI?
> Why does this compiler switch exist?

RTTI has a non-trivial cost, so some users disable this feature. In
particular, RTTI tends to make binaries larger, since compilers
produce additional functions that are needed to support the RTTI
facilities. In any case, Boost.Function shouldn't try to dictate what
language features users use, and it's perfectly acceptable for
Boost.Function to provide less functionally when RTTI is not
available.

  - Doug