Terje Slettebų wrote: >> From: "Rozental, Gennadiy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> 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 ? The same goes for any other part of the C++ standard. It's the end-users problem if they turn off something in their implementations, and then can't use it, which is part of the C++ standard. OTOH I do understand completely the great effort Boost has made to accomodate implementations which just don't support some area of the C++ standard completely. But I view the two issues as completely separate. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
