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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk