From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-27 15:15:55
on Wed Aug 27 2008, "Felipe Magno de Almeida" <felipe.m.almeida-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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.
Yes, that's what it seems to do. I had looked in the wrong place
(Boost.Exception's own headers) for mentions of BOOST_NO_RTTI and didn't
see any. It doesn't change my overall point, though.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk