Re: [boost] Boost and exceptions

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and exceptions
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-22 17:36:35

Nevin Liber wrote:
> 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.

I'm sure of what "my rule" means.  But I try to clarify my view.:

I have no complaint or issue with headers whose function is to
contain a list of library headers so that uses can include a bunch
of related headers at with just one include statement.  I have
referred to this practice as a "convenience header" which I
believe is common practice on this list.

FWIW I presonally don't like "convenience headers" because I
like to have a better idea of what I'm actually including.  But
let's chalk that up to personal taste and not anybody's problem.

The following sort of example

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

is what I'm objecting to.  This means that when I my code contains

#include <boost/throw_exception.hpp>

>From reading the code, I don't it to expect to include a whole
'nother library.  And that's they way it was before it was changed.
The change created surprises for me - and I just like to minimize
surprises.  This is about writing code which does what it looks like
it says it's going to do - no more no less.

Also note that I'm not saying that following the practice I recommend
will solve all problems and avoid all surprises.  But it contributes to
diminishing them and also helps keep the program/library scope from
expanding beyond the minimum it needs to be to do the job.

It's not that complicated and I don't think it should be all that
controversial.

Robert Ramey