From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-27 12:25:57
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Tue Aug 26 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
> If you know of cases where people broke backward compatibility in ways
> that were irresponsible, it would be good to hear about those. And it
> wouldn't hurt for Boost to have a guidelines page on how to manage
> interface evolution. I might just write one.
I'm referring specificly to the episode regarding boost exception
where by the purpose of boost::throw exception was changed
from a limited, lightweight piece of code crafted to address the
simple problem that some compilers don't implement "throw"
to a heavy weight (includes a bunch of new headers) module
whose purpose is totally inpenetrable and adds RTTI requirement
to any library which used boost::throw exception. The most
gauling was that when i pointed this out, no one seemed to
see this as a problem. In fact, there was no acknowedgement
that this was even an error. and no promise to fix it. I got the
feeling that the author thought this to be perfectly legitimate
given the new superior features (which are required by current
users) and that I should plan for future episodes of this nature.
Which is what I've done by removing dependence on
boost/throw_exception.hpp so its now and in the future a
non-problem for me. I have done something similar at least
one time in the past.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk