From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-08 14:01:51
Johan Nilsson wrote:
> Has Boost.System been reviewed? If not, having a reviewed and
> accepted library depend on a not-reviewed-and-accepted one seems a
> bit strange IMHO.
I believe it is already an implementation detail of the filesystem
library. Now it becomes a shared implementation detail of the asio
library as well.
I believe the goal of reviewing it as a separate library is to promote
a clear publicly documented error handling strategy that can be shared
and relied on by many libraries, inside and outside Boost. Once
reviewed, I expect that API to become a bit more stable (as in
fixed/unchanging) than what is today a library-specific implementation
I would also expect both those libraries named above to adopt the new
API, especially given the goal of those authors.
That said, if boost.system does not pass a review, filesystem and asio
still need to handle/report errors and there is no reason they cannot
continue using this implementation. There would simply be no mandate
to share that API more widely.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk