Subject: Re: [boost] Tests are a mess
From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-10 15:09:02
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Library A depend on Library B. Some applications depend on
> library B.
> Library B is a very simple facility with a clearly defined purpose.
> That purpose is to permit programs and other libraries to write
> code which will work accross a variety of platforms.
> Now Library B is changed to add a bunch of new features
> and/or facilities. Library B now has a whole new purpose -
> to provide new features and facilities.
> How does this in any way benefit the users of the original
> version of library B?
I was going to explain these benefits but then I read your post further.
> I don't know anything about the new exceptions library. How
> good is is or isn't, what it does, etc are not relevant. If you
> want to create a new throw exception with great new features
> that's just fine. But don't go foisting on me a whole new layer
> of work that I don't have time for - give it a different name.
In fairness, if anyone is being foisted on a whole new layer of work,
that's mostly me.
I understand your frustration. But since you don't want to spend the
time to understand the benefits for the end user (including users of
Boost Serialization), I'm wondering how we can continue this
In your mind, the situation is: no benefits - it's not worth it - I
don't trust 400 lines of code that I don't understand and don't care
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk