On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
Longer build time, dependence on a new library, new
requirement that the library be only used with rtti turned on.
At this point, based on Emil's and John's responses, it seems these first 2 issues aren't really problems in practice, while the 3rd issue is simply not the case.
It may or may not be the case now.
It never was the case. FWIW, I think boost.exception would have had much better reception from
other authors if the author had
I am quite happy with the reception the library got, during the review process and after.
b) let it "rippen" over a couple of releases. c) made a pitch/case to other library authors about what the benefits would be if his library were included instead of the traditional way of doing things d) explained how users would appreciate the "upgrade". e) explained how there wouldn't be any downsides. f) explained how the library author wouldn't really have to do anything but a couple of simple edits. g) and accepted the fact that it would take time for people to migrate. h) and accepted the fact that in spite of his best efforts, he might not be able to convince everyone.
I know it seems like it's a lot easier to just ram it down everyone's throat while they're attention is focused elsewhere.
The Boost review process doesn't seem to resemble ramming things down throats. :) It is clear that you don't approve of the current definition of boost::throw_exception. That's fine, you don't have to use it, but if you want to criticize it, it'd help if you first understand it. Otherwise you end up making unsubstantiated claims, rather than pointing out real problems. -- Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode