Janek Kozicki wrote:
One important question: should we avoid requiring RTTI?
IMHO one more option for the users is good. But better first have a working prototype, then add new features, like no_rtti support.
Note that the extended_type_info system in place works through a virtual base class. There are two different implementations one based on RTTI and one based on GUID's only. Code in the base class permits different systems to inter-operate. This was deemed necessary because I concieved the type registry system used to be a property of the type and I wanted to beable to import code that used a different type system. In principle any number of typeinfo system could be implemented in addition or instead of the two included. Another thing I forgot to mention. void_cast is to extended_type_info as dynamic_cast is to RTTI. Right now void_cast is documented separately, but that also would have to be broken out. Robert Ramey