Subject: Re: [boost] Tests are a mess
From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-11 17:20:41
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> 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?
> Here is where I asked for it
Ah. OK, the changes in boost::throw_exception are in full compliance
with your unsolicited pledge. Its semantics have not been changed,
only extended, and yes (I thought that was obvious) if any library
that uses boost::throw_exception breaks due to the changed semantics,
I *do* treat that as a bug (in boost::throw_exception.)
Though I have no plans to make any changes in the rest of the
Exception library, I can't make the same pledge for anything except
for boost::throw_exception, for now. The difference is that
boost::throw_exception is a simple, mature and proven interface; the
rest of Boost Exception is relatively new, I have only used that code
for about a year prior to the review proposal, and it was first
released in 1.36.
>> I would ask that library authors that cannot make a similar pledge include
>> a disclaimer in thier documentation and header files something on the
> You can ask anything you want and you can assume anything you want
> about Boost libraries, but the fact is that they do change and
> occasionally breaking changes are introduced, which may or may not be
I wasn't expressing an opinion, I was stating a fact. Boost libraries
do change, and occasionally the changes do break existing code, and
occasionally such breaking changes are made on purpose. I apologize
for the perhaps inappropriate tone of that remark.
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