Subject: Re: [boost] [random] geometric_distribution backwards compatibility
From: Vicente Botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-24 05:53:14
Steven Watanabe-4 wrote:
> A * Leave the implementation alone and put a big
> warning in the documentation saying that the
> behavior doesn't match the standard.
> B * Since I'm also moving things into namespace
> boost::random, I can use the new definition
> and leave a version with the old behavior in
> namespace boost instead of having a using
> declaration. I'd still have to add a warning
> that boost::geometric_distribution isn't the
> same as boost::random::geometric_distribution.
> Neither one is particularly appealing.
> Any thoughts? Better ideas?
Don't breaking code is the best we can do. Option B allows to don't break
user code, and if the non standard behavior is marked as deprecated (and is
a compile warning can be generated) the user can move smoothly to the
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/random-geometric-distribution-backwards-compatibility-tp3233232p3233725.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.