# rael@zopyra.com / 2006-06-16 07:05:56 -0500:
On Friday, June 16, 2006 at 08:45:27 (+0100) Russell Hind writes:
Bill Lear wrote:
Versioning is per-class, and so why would you increment the version if you did not introduce forward-incompatible changes? It seems that you only increment the version if you add/remove data members, reorder them, or whatever. I don't really see a practical downside to having the library automatically puke if you are using old code to read a newer version of a class.
I don't expect the old version to read it successfully. The 'puke' as you put it at the moment is an access violation. Which basically may have left the process in an unstable state. I want it to 'puke' but with an exception that can be caught and handled gracefully. Not an access violation which basically means its anyones guess as to whether the software can run successfully. Read my original post on the matter again.
I understood your original post and by "puke" I obviously meant throw an exception --- what else did you expect? A silent exit? Core dump?
As far as I understand it, "access violation" is a segmentation fault, so yes, it is core dumping for him. -- How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991