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:
> 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.
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.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk