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

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] should it require rtti?
From: Kenny Riddile (kfriddile_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-03 18:10:20

Doug Gregor wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
Not to mention that RTTI simply isn't available in some environments.