Subject: Re: [boost] Peer Review Report for proposed Boost.TypeIndex v2.1 Nov 12th 21st 2013
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-25 02:18:16
On 25/11/2013 19:23, Quoth Andrey Semashev:
> boost::type_info is not a problem by itself, as far as I understood the
> reviews. The problem was the hack through which it was implemented in the
> proposed library and the discrepancies with std::type_info. Remove these two
> issues and boost::type_info becomes a type quite useful for portability.
Yes, that's where I thought consensus was heading.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk