Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-06 07:21:11

Should not axiom2 be a Corollary of axiom1...

Even though life is indeed dangerous, and quite chaotic, in many
aspects, we can here (in the world of formalization) enjoy the luxury of
defining the rules ourselves. So, why should we strive to copy that

I.e., it is not certain that the Laws of Life, or postulates of life's
conditions, are applicable to formal languages.

The "inevitable danger" will most likely arise in the dynamics of
program execution anyhow, without us adding to that in the "static"
rules of languages and libraries.

I definitely believe that keeping the "inherent" danger of our
constructs at a low level is a positive factor. The Users (i.e.,
programmers) can always experience the Danger of Life by clever pointer
arithmetic, if they start to conceive the formal world of programming to
dull; no need for us to help there...


-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Victor A. Wagner,
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 5:09 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Platform

Geez, I hate to have to chime in on Eric's side (since I disagree with
of what he says), but it _should_ be the "stated" or "posted" will of
community. I found the arguments ("they're not safe") for deleting
semaphore so specious that I gave up on attempting any further

Ben Franklin said (in respect to human interaction)"They that can give
essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety."
I believe the same applies here. Refusing to implement some method of
being able to pass an exception (ok, maybe not ALL exceptions, I
find the concept of "throw 7;" to be an abomination of the body of C++)
across thread boundaries because it's not "safe' disappointing.

axiom1: there is no such thing as "absolute safety".
axiom2: attempting to reach "absolute safety" is like searching for the
"end of the rainbow"
axiom3: doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results
(e.g. "we have achieved absolute safety") is insanity.
axiom4: many things are inherently dangerous

I'm suggesting that we quit using "it might not be safe if misused" as a

mantra. It's a consideration, that's all. "Gee, this might be unsafe
if I
misuse it...I'd better be careful."

We're not children here. We handle dangerous things every day (knives,
driving, etc).
The language cannot protect against a lot of things that will cause the
program to blow up, why are we so worried about this one?

as the guy in the next office said...waaaay back when: "If you make a
system that even a fool can use, only a fool will use it." Dennis J.

At Monday 2002/08/05 14:50, you wrote:
>Final warning, Eric: tone down the rhetoric or we will ban you from the
>If any design philosophies are being ignored here (which I seriously
>doubt), it's certainly not "brutal".
>I'd say if anything you're ignoring what Bill said about the fact that
>current implementation is based on the will of the community.
>-Dave (still trying to be on vacation and getting seriously annoyed)
> David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
>dave_at_[hidden] *
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
>To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
>Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 5:09 PM
>Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Platform
>Please explain how boost users are supposed to maintain a level of
>confidence in the safety of this foundation that is aimed at addressing
>impotence of C++ itself, by providing things that were left out of the
>standard, when the communities own design philosophies are brutally
>by its own members.
>Boost doesn't stand to make any profit, so then why doesn't it stand on
>it's principles above the alternatives? It seems that upon examination,
>boost is going the way of all other open projects that exist. This is
>leading me to believe that inspecting of OpenSceneGraph, which also
>provides an image of holding high-standards, will prove the same.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William E. Kempf
> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
> Sent: Monday, 2002:August:05 4:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Platform
>Neutrality -withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 3:07 PM
> Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Platform Neutrality -
> withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef
> > I can understand the hit taken in the readability of the mutex
> > implementation for "efficiency," but it is unacceptable for
> > read boost's biases and the thread implementation is a certain
> of
> > the heart of boost's principles.
> Eric, I think you're getting confrontational. Boost went through
> review and no one had the objections to the *implementation* that
you do.
> More over, Boost.Threads is hardly the only Boost library that uses
> conditional compilation in this manner. If you're going to accuse
me of
> violating the heart of Boost's principles you'd better back it up
> citations.
> Truth be told, a pre-review version of the library used the PIMPL
> the reasons you cited, and it received numerous complaints for
> so. The current usage of conditional compilation is a result of the
> membership requesting this.
> Bill Kempf
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>Unsubscribe & other changes:

Victor A. Wagner Jr.
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"

Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at