From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-27 19:36:00
on Wed Aug 27 2008, "Peter Dimov" <pdimov-AT-pdimov.com> wrote:
> David Abrahams:
>> So IIUC, your intention was never to require RTTI in throw_exception, ...
> The new throw_exception was not supposed to impose any new
> requirements and it certainly was not supposed to break code that
> worked before. (It almost succeeded at that.)
>> and Emil didn't know that, so he violated your original intent
>> unwittingly. What about the "weight" of the header and its
>> dependencies? Your usual stance is to avoid such things.
> Well, one upside is that exceptions thrown by boost::throw_exception
> now can be used with boost::exception_ptr. This makes exception_ptr
> more useful and requires zero effort from library authors who already
> throw all their exceptions via boost::throw_exception.
I understand the benefits. You've completely avoided my question ;-)
What about the "weight" of the header? Did imposing it on clients of
boost::throw_exception concern you at all? If you went through some
cost/benefit analysis (even in your own mind) I'd like to hear about it.
> The alternative way to provide such functionality would've been
> through a separate throw replacement, part of Boost.Exception. This
> would indeed have had zero impact on the rest of Boost, both in the
> negative and the positive sense. (That is, it would have required
> every library author willing to support exception_ptr to switch from
> boost::throw_exception to the new function.)
Yes, I understand that too.
> It was impossible to predict in advance whether going with option A
> would be worth the trouble. The only way to find out was to try.
Surely there must be another way to find out if library authors would
react badly to a dependency on Boost.Exception. In fact, it might well
have been possible to sell everyone on the idea before the fact, but it
will be a lot harder to get Robert to accept it now.
> I think that (for such a major change) the transition went fairly
> smoothly. We still have the option to revert throw_exception if the
> "broad discussion" that should have happened then but is happening now
> reaches this conclusion.
I'm not sure it's the right conclusion to reach, but I do want to
> Either way, we'll still be ahead of where we were, both because we now
> have BOOST_NO_RTTI and some awareness of its significance, and because
> the new throw_exception caught a few bugs.
The impression I get is that for you, those benefits outweigh the costs
by such a wide margin that the costs aren't even worth mentioning. Is
-- 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