Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] exception, filesystem, system_error and consistency
From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-11 22:55:44
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> You're not overdramatizing at all. In fact, it's just the opposite - you're
> UNDERdramatizing. The serialization library used the original boost
> exception functionality. This original functionality was such that
> it handled the case where the compiler didn't support (or the environment
> didn't want to support) normal C++ exceptions. This is common
> in things like embedded systems. All of a sudden, the symantics of
> the boost excpetion changed.
The change doesn't break anything that wasn't already broken under the
old semantics. In fact the change uncovered several bugs in Boost
libraries not meeting the original requirements of
> This made available new functionality
> which no current libraries used
You're missing the point. Even if a Boost library, say Serialization,
doesn't use the functionality of Boost Exception, the users of Boost
Serialization could still use it.
Your argument boils down to "I don't care if anyone needs to transport
Serialization exceptions to another thread. Tough!"
> and added many lines of header source
> to every module which used it.
About 400 lines. That code enables (does not implement) the
functionality of Boost Exception. There is no way for anyone to make
use of Boost Exception without that code.
> It also broke any libraries built without
> RTTI - another valid case.
That was fixed long ago.
> I complained about this at the time but
> I couldn't get any traction. I would have had no objection if the new
> exception had been an option - but it's invaded everything - I just
> used the thread library, and had a problem because of it.
Please do report problems you have.
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net