Sometimes it feels like Linus has a lot of aliases on these lists ;-) I especially liked the - partly retracted, admittedly - statement that C++ developers have a lot to learn from the typical C developer, but probably not the other way around. Especially in the light of the typical C++ developer often having been a typical C developer 7 years earlier. And most master C++ developers having been typical C developers 14-22 years ago. The only point with which I agree is those ugly macros. Yes, I know why we need them, but they are still ugly. BUT, PP is a splendid engineering effort (in retrofitting the C++ preprocessor for tasks it was not meant to handle.) Boost is the only set of libraries in a "conventional" language that do as I think, which is why it is good :-) /David On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Tom Brinkman <reportbase2007@gmail.com> wrote:
In any event, my point is that c++ exception handeling should be optional. Boost libraries need to be updated to reflect this.
Look at the design of C++ constructors: the postcondition of a constructor is that the object instance is initialized successfully. Had Stroustrup listened to people arguing about "optional" exception handling, the C++ constructors would have been useless because they wouldn't have that postcondition.
It is the same with any other use of exceptions. Make them optional, and you throw away the *only* reason to use them in the first place: to enforce postconditions.
Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost