Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and exceptions
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-21 13:12:55

John Maddock wrote:
> 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.

lol - I guess the best arguement against my proposal would be to say
that my proposal at this point (if that's what it was) would be engaging in
the same
practice that I've been arguing against in the first place. Which would
be a tough argument to counter. It's sort of like eating my own tail. lol

If this discussion prevents some future library author from gratuitously
extending the dependencies of existing code, it will have been worthwhile.

Still, I would like to consider one thing that might inprove things;

a) boost::throw_exception would be deprecated. (not changed)
b) the same facility would be invoked by:

#include <boost/exception/throw_exception.hpp>
boost::exception::throw_exception ....

as usual, the deprecation would mean
a) an initial period of compile time warning
b) eventual elmination.

This later stage would create a compile time error which would be
trivial fixable. No program bugs would be introduced.

This would advise programmers who've been inadvertantly
including boost::exception that they are in fact doing so and
give them the opportunity to decide whether or not they
really want to do this. Of course this might require them to
read at least some of the documentation of boost exception.
This is not a bad thing.

Authors of new code would conciously decide whether
or not they were including boost exception. Also not
a bad thing.

Note that I'm not making any judgment on the merits
of boost exception itself. This about limiting unintentional
dependcies. Boost exception just happens to be the
main example here.

Robert Ramey

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at