Re: [boost] any_function (callback) library

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-11 12:06:23

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Powell" <Gary.Powell_at_[hidden]>

> > It comes down to a question of definitions: is passing a 0 to the
> > constructor misuse, or is it allowed? If it's misuse I want an
assertion.

Oops. I meant "is calling a zero any-function misuse?"

> Pass in a zero should be allowed. Sometimes I initialize things in one
place
> and fill them in at another. Calling it is a misuse. But for released code
I
> want an exception thrown, not a crash.

Then you need a tunable assertion.

> The idea that released products should crash is one that needs to be
tossed.

I never believed that. They should be correct ;-)

> But hey I write games and if you lose your character, because I wrote
buggy
> code, its just an excuse for you to play another 1K hrs and build it up
> again. No seriously, if you can afford the code space, not crashing is the
> way to go. That's heart monitors, games, airplane control systems. Come to
> think of it, there are no computer programs in which a released version
> should just crash. Shut down with a "I can't go on" is so much nicer.
> Sometimes you can actually do something useful on the way out.
>
> By this I mean I understand that some embedded systems are too code space
> contained to use exceptions. But by in large, the more robust the code
I've
> written the better off I and my customers are. It's much easier to ship a
> game that doesn't do some feature in an edge case than one that crashes in
> that same edge case. Preferably I'll fix it, but if its missed. I hate
> working until 4am on a death march to get the crashing bugs out.

Which is one reason why some people need assertions, at least in debug
builds.

-Dave