Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads draft library submission

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-17 16:53:33

At 02:43 PM 3/17/2001, David Abrahams wrote:

 >IMO using the question "is this an exceptional situation?" to decide
 >whether
 >to throw an exception has an attractive ring to it, but is usually a
 >mistake. A more appropriate question to ask is: "do we want stack 
unwinding
 >here?"
 >
 >As a developer, if I have violated a precondition of a library I'm using, 
I
 >don't want stack unwinding. What I want is a core dump or the equivalent 
-
 >a
 >way to inspect the state of the program at the point where the problem 
was
 >detected. That usually means assert() or some equivalent.
 >
 >I have sympathy with the idea of making resilient APIs which can stand up 

 >to
 >nearly any kind of client abuse, but there is usually a significant cost 
to
 >this approach. If someone wants that sort of protection, it can usually 
be
 >provided as a layer on top of a simpler API.  I am utterly unsympathetic 
to
 >half-measures, though. An API which promises resilience against some, but
 >not all abuse is an invitation to disaster.

Dave,

Please, please, please, convert the above to HTML and stick it in 
boost-root/more.

Then I have to figure a way to hardwire my brain to always read the page 
before I design a new interface or new error detection code to an old one.

Thanks,

--Beman