Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and exceptions
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-21 05:14:02
> Here's the real situation. One invests a HUGE amount of effort
> that it takes to get a libary over the various boost hurdles. I don't
> very many people have any idea what it takes to get something
> like file_system, serialization, or others into boost. After this
> huge initial effort you've got to spend some time cleaning up some
> detail and handling user complaints, upgrading documentation etc.
> (don't even mention the time it takes to deal with boost tools).
> So now you can sort of relax as things settle down, you've responded
> to all the questions by upgrading your documentation, etc. etc.
> Of course by the time this happens, you're way behind on your
> "real" work and trying to catch up with that.
For sure, and I've been bitten by that a few times, come to that I think I
may have caused that a few times for which I apologise.
I also was seem to dimly remember being bitten by the changes to
Boost.Exception when they happened, but you no what? Not once since, never.
That's a pretty good record IMO.
> FWIW, I think boost.exception would have had much better reception from
> other authors if the author had
> a) implemented as I proposed.
> b) let it "rippen" over a couple of releases.
> c) made a pitch/case to other library authors about what the benefits
> be if his library were included instead of the traditional way of doing
> d) explained how users would appreciate the "upgrade".
> e) explained how there wouldn't be any downsides.
> f) explained how the library author wouldn't really have to do anything
> but a couple of simple edits.
> g) and accepted the fact that it would take time for people to migrate.
> h) and accepted the fact that in spite of his best efforts, he might not
> be able to convince everyone.
All of which are good arguments, except they're *4 years too late*.
Sorry but suggesting we just revert something back to a way it never
actually was in the first place, after it's been functioning apparently OK
for 4 years, and which users may well have been relying on over that time
isn't going to wash.
Surprising how fast time goes yours, John.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk