Re: [boost] [exception][policy] (was: Should we provide hot fixes?)

From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-27 14:32:53

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:13 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> on Wed Aug 27 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
>

[snip]

>> The most gauling was that when i pointed this out, no one seemed to
>> see this as a problem.
>
> Maybe the right people weren't reading your post.
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, I really hope I'm missing something, but from the evidence I see
> before me, this was at least not handled well.  We have a Boost-wide
> convention that libraries wanting to report errors on compilers with no
> exceptions support use boost::throw_exception.  The change of
> boost::throw_exception essentially made a Boost-wide policy decision
> that such libraries, when they *do* throw, will integrate the
> Boost.Exception machinery.  That shouldn't have happened without a
> broader discussion.

AFAIK, the boost was never meant to be used without
RTTI without defining BOOST_NO_RTTI. So that I don't see how
Boost.Exception is violating boost::throw_exception requirements.
AFAIU, boost::throw_exception disables (if it doesn't, then I would call it a
bug) boost.exception use when defining BOOST_NO_RTTI.
This didn't seem to have been discussed enough in that thread, and most
of what was said is that something worked when no RTTI was
available and that it doesn't work anymore.

[snip]

> I'd like to know more.
>
> --
> Dave Abrahams
> BoostPro Computing
> http://www.boostpro.com

-- 
Felipe Magno de Almeida