Line 223 in function_base.hpp uses typeid. Can this be avoided? If not, perhaps it can be refactored to use the workaround found in sp_typeinfo.hpp? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Emil Dotchevski<emil@revergestudios.com> wrote:
Line 223 in function_base.hpp uses typeid. Can this be avoided? If not, perhaps it can be refactored to use the workaround found in sp_typeinfo.hpp?
Function needs to work when RTTI is not available. It's acceptable for some functionality to be missing (contains/target/target_type) or to implement the same functionality in a different way. - Doug
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Doug Gregor<doug.gregor@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Emil Dotchevski<emil@revergestudios.com> wrote:
Line 223 in function_base.hpp uses typeid. Can this be avoided? If not, perhaps it can be refactored to use the workaround found in sp_typeinfo.hpp?
Function needs to work when RTTI is not available. It's acceptable for some functionality to be missing (contains/target/target_type) or to implement the same functionality in a different way.
Well then this should be fixed. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
"Doug Gregor" <doug.gregor@gmail.com> wrote in message news:24b520d20907231123u1f71b719y7523f1e17aac42e5@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?
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Peter Foelsche<peter_foelsche@agilent.com> wrote:
"Doug Gregor" <doug.gregor@gmail.com> wrote in message news:24b520d20907231123u1f71b719y7523f1e17aac42e5@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
Doug Gregor wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Peter Foelsche<peter_foelsche@agilent.com> wrote:
"Doug Gregor" <doug.gregor@gmail.com> wrote in message news:24b520d20907231123u1f71b719y7523f1e17aac42e5@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.
participants (5)
-
Doug Gregor -
Emil Dotchevski -
Emil Dotchevski -
Kenny Riddile -
Peter Foelsche