Re: [boost] Tests are a mess

Subject: Re: [boost] Tests are a mess
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-11 15:34:10

David Abrahams wrote:
> on Thu Sep 11 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:

> Okay, Robert.  Now your concerns have been taken seriously, and, I
> think, addressed.  Is that correct, and if so, can we move on?  If
> not, what is left to deal with?

nothing - I move on some time ago.

>
>> This question has been raised why I put it into
>> boost::serialization::throw_exception instead just using
>> boost::throw_exception for the for user override.  This is the
>> decision which I believe is causing your grief.  First of all, it's
>> not clear to me anymore what boost::throw_exception should do - its
>> not obvious that its equivalent to the old boost::throw_exception.
>
> You won't take the word of Emil and Peter that it is?

No - I asked for a pledge that if this happened in the future it would
be considered a bug.  Since I didn't get one, there's no reason to believe
 it won't happen in the future.  Rather than belabor the point, I just
decided not to use the library until I have to time to look into it.

> But throw_exception is not a similar case in any way.  The things you
> were asked to move were *definitions* that were placed into namespace
> boost rather than into the serialization library.  You didn't have a
> definition of throw_exception to move.

OK - I can easily implement vincent's suggestion.  That should do it.

Robert Ramey