Subject: Re: [boost] Tests are a mess
From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-11 15:26:18
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:58 AM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
In my mind, what "happened" was a change in implementation details of
I'm presuming that you are not requesting that any change in a
function or library boost::serialization depends on should be
considered a bug; could you explain your request a little better?
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