From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-26 08:53:31
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > When the test system introduced automatic memory leak detection, I
> > noticed for the first time that lots of the demos and tests had
> > memory leaks. It doesn't affect the validity of the demos and tests
> > but it does look a little sloppy. I'm reluctant to fix this as I'm
> > concerned about complicating the demos and diminishing their
> > tutorial value and about complicating the tests.
> IMO that's unacceptable for Boost. A naive user who follows a Boost
> example like a recipe could introduce errors into his organization's
> codebase. Who do you think the deveopment team manager will blame
> when he finds out the error was present in our example? Do you think
> they'll continue to have confidence in the quality of the Boost
> libraries they're using? I don't.
I'd like to register another strong agreement with this opinion.
Additionally, if making the example clean and safe really does complicate
the code, then there are serious problems with the smart pointers (and/or
other features) used to make it clean.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk