Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and exceptions
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-21 19:05:41
On 20 June 2012 19:19, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Here's the *real* situation: Welcome to software development.
> True - it's bad enough already - So let's agree not to make it worse
> if we can avoid it.
Define "worse". There are multiple conflicting goals. As I pointed out
from the FAQ:
"Many of the Boost libraries are actively maintained and improved, so
backward compatibility with prior version isn't always possible."
> "It's not going to be perfect anyway, so don't sweat the small stuff"
Of course we should strive for perfection (even if we can't achieve it),
and sweat the small stuff.
Now define "perfection". Perfection != 100% backwards compatible. As I
said before: "While the bar on changing functionality and/or interfaces is
high, it isn't (and never has been, as far as I know) absolute (and it
isn't even as high as the C++ standard, nor should it be)."
Good practices can reduce (but not eliminate) accidental risk., but ultimately,
one has to balance risk of breakage vs. enhancement value.
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk