On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Hmmm - so this was "extensively" reviewed but no one thought to inform users of the then current system. I only discovered it when I started to have some sort of problems with the serialization library. (I forget the details). So by definition it wasn't an unobstrusive change.
No, the change wasn't entirely unobtrusive, a few wrinkles had to be ironed out. If you insist, I don't mind discussing the initial deployment of Boost Exception, but perhaps it'd be a better use of everyone's time to stick to the present. The whole way this was done conflicts with the whole Boost
cooperative development model in a fundamental way. The whole concept of development using other libraries has to be based on the premise that once established, a library functionality can't be changed.
Obviously libraries change. The important thing is to keep changes compatible with existing code. The "new" (several years old now) boost::throw_exception functionality is 100% compatible with the original.
But frankly, I would prefer it if all
libraries were on the same page here and all used BOOST_THROW_EXCETION consistently.
lol - you mean like the way it used to be? that's my point.
FYI, there was no BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION before Boost Exception. What he means is that BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION is preferable to boost::throw_exception, because it allows more complete messages by boost::diagnostic_information. -- Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode