Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota@yahoo.com> wrote:
Out of curiosity --as I really don't intend to waste one more minute on it-- is Test.Minimal using all this loathsomeness?
It seems that it doesn't. The code in question, about 400 lines at present, is fully contained in boost/exception/exception.hpp and as of 1.36 is included in boost/throw_exception.hpp. The purpose of this coupling is to provide hooks to support boost::current_exception and the ability for users to augment active exception objects with additional (possibly user-specific) info not available at the point of the throw.
If anyone is concerned about this coupling I encourage them to participate in the discussion on this very subject going on right now (hopefully after familiarizing themselves with the exception library.)
Nah, I'm not concerned about that, really. At least not specifically. I find it awful that, in a library that --believe me-- I know from the first to the last line of code, I have no idea of what gets included from the lower levels. Putting the Cassandra-hat on, I advise you not to start any discussion. It will be discussed ad infinitum without any useful consequence on code. The #include<> vs. #include"" issue was beaten to death in the past, for instance. To the point that it led to core issue 370; committee time wasted on it, and the obvious advice/conclusion from them. Still, no change in boost code. Another example? "Optimizing" operator=. With all the problems that Boost has. BTW, you were the only one who noticed that test reports were not working, so please don't assume I was attacking you. -- Genny