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
is what I'm objecting to. This means that when I my code contains
>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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk