From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-20 13:07:42
Peter Bartlett wrote:
> Quoting Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>:
> I'm not sure that is the right characterization. By default Boost
> works with standard C++ so if RTTI is turned off, then it is fair to
> require the BOOST_NO_TYPEID define. Changes such as this which
> potentially change "latent" bugs in client code/setup being turned
> into visible bugs have to be acceptable when changing Boost version,
My complaint is the imposition of a new requirement. This changes
the "contract" between the library and its user. You can't change
the contract and say that the code which used the old contract
had "latent" bugs in it.
>> I have no idea what else this might break.
> It will break people using throw_exception but throwing things not
> derived from std::exception. This was an implicit requirement anyway,
What is an "implicit requirement"? You mean that previous users
of boost/throw_exception where remiss if they didn't derive
from std::exception or if they didn't surround throw_exception
with #if BOOST_NO_TYPEID. I like to think I'm a smart guy
but I don't claim to be telepathic.
> but users will have previously got away with it if they never actually
> exercised their code on a no-exceptions platform.
Hmmm - It looks to me that the previous code would work fine
on a no-exeptions platform - all it did was call a user defined
> I can't think of any other problems, though. What did you have in
LOL, That's the problem. I can't think of any problems because
to do so would require investigating the new library in more detail
would cost me more time than I have available right now.
This was not a problem then throw_exception had a very limited and
well defined purpose. The real problem is
creating a new library with new functionality and requirements
and assigning to an old name which heretofore was being used
for something else. This kind of thing creates a lot of unnecessary
work for innocent bystanders.
> IMO, the major issue with this change is the lack of documentation.
> seems to refer to the 1.35 version of the code. I don't know if this a
> documentation bug or a documentation generation bug.
well, there is that as well.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk