Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and exceptions
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-22 02:52:15
Nevin Liber wrote:
> Good practices can reduce (but not eliminate) accidental risk., but
> ultimately, one has to balance risk of breakage vs. enhancement value.
Your missing something key here. This injection of a gratuitous
dependency wasn't any way necessary. Boost exception could
have just as easily used it's own name for this function rather
than hijacking an existing one which had a different purpose.
This would have been better than, and if fact it would be better
now, even though now it would be a "breaking change"
This "breaking change was in no way necessary. I think I've tried
to point that out.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk