Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and exceptions
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-20 16:00:24
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hmmm - so this was "extensively" reviewed but no one thought
> to inform users of the then current system. I only discovered it
> when I started to have some sort of problems with the serialization
> library. (I forget the details). So by definition it wasn't an
No, the change wasn't entirely unobtrusive, a few wrinkles had to be ironed
If you insist, I don't mind discussing the initial deployment of Boost
Exception, but perhaps it'd be a better use of everyone's time to stick to
The whole way this was done conflicts with the whole Boost
> cooperative development model in a fundamental way. The whole
> concept of development using other libraries has to be based
> on the premise that once established, a library functionality can't be
Obviously libraries change. The important thing is to keep changes
compatible with existing code.
The "new" (several years old now) boost::throw_exception functionality is
100% compatible with the original.
> But frankly, I would prefer it if all
> > libraries were on the same page here and all used
> > BOOST_THROW_EXCETION consistently.
> lol - you mean like the way it used to be? that's my point.
FYI, there was no BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION before Boost Exception.
What he means is that BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION is preferable to
boost::throw_exception, because it allows more complete messages by
-- Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk