on Sun Jun 24 2012, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Sun Jun 24 2012, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
The the more you pick at Emil's design and the more I check your arguments, the more impressed I am with the care he took. I may be misunderstanding, but IIUC, the "problem" that he "fixed" was that his change caused already-unsupported misuses of boost::throw_exception to stop compiling. It's arguable that those misuses *should* be flagged with compiler errors.
No, those were good compiler errors.
I don't know what you mean by "good" here.
I mean the compile error that the current boost::throw_exception induces if the type of the passed object doesn't derive from std::exception is good, even though it "broke" non-conforming libraries.
I think you're agreeing with me, then, despite the fact that you started with "No..." -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com