Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exceptionsafetyguarantee

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exceptionsafetyguarantee
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-19 03:34:00

"Emil Dotchevski" <emil_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:AANLkTi=1J3+hD0Oh3Le+6-jfnwDLYpTn_A7a6x=oZFnz_at_mail.gmail.com...

> ... at worst they'd be mad that you've used
> Boost (that's common in games, for example.)

Shall we disregard all those cases (of Boost rejection) as irrational rants 
(as admittedly they often are, be it of the 'corporate policy' type or of 
the Linus Torvalds type) or shall it be admitted that after all, sometimes, 
they actually are based on real objections (that Boost, or parts of it, made 
some not-so-happy efficiency compromising choices)...?

--
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than
from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman