On 07/03/2012 04:37 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
On 7/1/12, Jason Merrill<ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
As discussed, I would say that RTTI is currently not permitted
but could be added later.
But isn't "could be added later" always true? Other folks have
objected to such wording on the grounds that it adds no information,
so I hesistate to add such wording now.
I suppose.
For the rationale, I would say that disabling RTTI saves some space
for classes with virtual functions when it isn't used, but could
be enabled if it would be useful in some part of the compiler.
And then remove the rest of the rationale.
I think you're objecting to "Checking the type of a class at
runtime usually indicates a design problem." I copied this text
from the wiki. Does anyone object to me removing it?
I also object to the rest of the rationale. I would be OK with just
leaving "Disabling RTTI will save space in the compiler" and removing
the rest.
Jason
