From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-10 11:14:36
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