On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:58 AM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Thu Sep 11 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Sep 11 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote: Okay, Robert. Now your concerns have been taken seriously, and, I think, addressed. Is that correct, and if so, can we move on? If not, what is left to deal with? nothing - I move on some time ago.
This question has been raised why I put it into boost::serialization::throw_exception instead just using boost::throw_exception for the for user override. This is the decision which I believe is causing your grief. First of all, it's not clear to me anymore what boost::throw_exception should do - its not obvious that its equivalent to the old boost::throw_exception.
You won't take the word of Emil and Peter that it is?
No - I asked for a pledge that if this happened in the future it would be considered a bug.
In my mind, what "happened" was a change in implementation details of boost::throw_exception. I'm presuming that you are not requesting that any change in a function or library boost::serialization depends on should be considered a bug; could you explain your request a little better? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode