Subject: Re: [boost] Tests are a mess
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-11 14:58:51
on Thu Sep 11 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
> 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.
Whom did you you ask for a pledge?
> 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.
I don't understand what "happening in the future" has to do with this
particular library. Could you explain?
>> 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.
-- 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