Re: [boost] [1.36.0] Libraries with unmerged changes?

From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-15 22:26:47

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:11 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> on Tue Jul 15 2008, "Emil Dotchevski" <emil-AT-revergestudios.com> wrote:
>> Here is an example: adding the Exception library "broke" several other
>> libraries that were throwing ints or enums through
>> boost::throw_exception. The fact is that boost::throw_exception has
>> always required that its argument is of type that derives from
>> std::exception, but it did nothing to enforce this requirement. Now it
>> does enforce it which exposed the bugs in the other libraries. This is
>> a good thing.
>
> That was one of the kinds of cases I had in mind when wondering if it
> was a good idea to rely on dependent libraries' tests to discover
> problems in a library.

As opposed to?

I mean, it's not like you want to rely on other libraries to catch
your bugs, but you can't be 101% sure you're not using other libraries
inappropriately. For example, you might depend on an implementation
detail of another library without knowing it (note that "not knowing
it" isn't always a matter of being careless.) This might become source
of regressions, which are typically undetected until the
implementation of the dependent library changes.

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode