Re: [boost] [random] geometric_distribution backwards compatibility

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:
> 
> AMDG
> 
> 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
standard behavior.

Best,
Vicente

-- 
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.