Re: [boost] Boost and exceptions

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and exceptions
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-22 16:13:43

On 22 June 2012 15:40, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> In a previous post, I specifically excluded "convenience headers" from
> being considered as "violating" this "rule".  They are not at issue here.
>

You keep asserting this, but I haven't seen you explain *what* makes the
convenience headers so special that they do not violate your rule.
-- 
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]>  [phone]