Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:19:40 -0700
On Tuesday, 12 March 2024 06:46:02 PDT Andrei Grosu via Std-Proposals wrote:
> 2. Regarding the optionally enabled stuff in the standard, there is a giant,
> gaping precedence for this: exceptions. RTTI can be conditionally disabled
> at compile time.
Those are not standard options. The standard requires that all compilers
implement them and makes no discussion about whether they can be turned off or
what happens if you do. There's no discussion in the standard about what
happens if operator new needs to fail and there is no exception support.
There's no discussion about dynamic_cast'ing something that lacks RTTI.
Those are extensions by some compilers. If you're comfortable with extensions,
then why does it need to be in the standard?
> 2. Regarding the optionally enabled stuff in the standard, there is a giant,
> gaping precedence for this: exceptions. RTTI can be conditionally disabled
> at compile time.
Those are not standard options. The standard requires that all compilers
implement them and makes no discussion about whether they can be turned off or
what happens if you do. There's no discussion in the standard about what
happens if operator new needs to fail and there is no exception support.
There's no discussion about dynamic_cast'ing something that lacks RTTI.
Those are extensions by some compilers. If you're comfortable with extensions,
then why does it need to be in the standard?
-- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Principal Engineer - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering
Received on 2024-03-12 14:19:41