David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:
Why is a runtime error better than a compile-time error in this case?
I implemented it this way because it was the easiest thing to do. I'm happy to make it a compile-time error.
I'm asking you/us to figure out what the right response is. I think it's the latter, but someone else should give it some thought.
Well, you could argue that making it a run-time error will result in simpler user code. Since everyone should be checking exceptions anyway, user code can decide whether failing to link is fatal. It could, for example, do a copy instead. On the other hand, you won't know until you're running the code whether hard linking will work. That could result in a lot of wasted time. But then if hard linking is not important, the client has to put in #ifdef BOOST_POSIX into their code. That seems icky, but maybe it's just me. In general, I prefer compile-time to run-time errors. Regards, Walter Landry wlandry@ucsd.edu