Re: [boost] [boost exception]complaint

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-20 15:46:19

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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.

> The semantics of boost::throw_exception have not changed.

That's where we differ.  It seems to me that on certain platforms
things won't work as they had before.  Of course if I'm wrong
about that, the my complaint is ill founded.

>Users are
> not required to surround a call to throw_exception with #if
> BOOST_NO_TYPEID.
>
> The user-reported problem was due to user error. They had violated the
> general Boost requirement to #define BOOST_NO_TYPEID if they don't
> want Boost libraries to use typeid.

Hmm - I wasn't aware of any such requirement.  I would expect
something like that to be defined by the config library.

Hmmm, so now we have "implicit requirements" and "general requirements"
that we need to be cognisant of to use boost?  This seems
like a lot to ask.

Robert Ramey