Re: [boost] [exception][policy]

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:
>>
>
> [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.

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