Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review, please stop discussing non-Stacktrace issues

Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review, please stop discussing non-Stacktrace issues
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-16 22:27:56

On 17 Dec 2016 at 0:50, Peter Dimov wrote:

> > Bringing it back to the review of Stacktrace which this is (and not of 
> > Exception, another discussion thread would suit that), I am seeing the 
> > following options proposed for Stacktrace:
> [snip]
> This is proving to be a distraction from the Stacktrace review and I think 
> that we need to postpone this discussion for when Stacktrace is accepted.

I agree.

1. Can those talking about Boost.Exception please move their 
discussion to a new thread and stop distracting from the Stacktrace 
review thread? I'm not saying it's not valuable discussion, just 
please start a new thread.

2. I have seen repeated comments by more than one person of 
"Stacktrace would need to have XXX functionality to do ...". Please 
consider reviewing Stacktrace as presented before making more of 
these comments. About 80% of those comments Stacktrace already has 
that functionality and you are wasting time proving a rationale for 
them being implemented because it's implemented already. For the 20% 
of the time Stacktrace doesn't have something, I need to see a formal 
review from you saying "Stacktrace needs YYY functionality to do ..."

3. Please could people actually review Stacktrace's implementation 
code instead of inferring implementation from what someone else said 
here about something they half read in the tutorial. Specifically, is 
its API design solid? Is the use of std::string in its public API 
acceptable? Is its stacktrace capturing implementation malloc free? 
That sort of thing.

These are the sorts of non-hand-waving review feedback we need.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/