On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Tobias Schwinger wrote:
The review period of the proposed Exception library has been extended until October 20th.
1. Should the library be accepted as a Boost library? For a guideline on what to include in your evaluation see
I did not use or studied this library (as well as did not use other Boost libraries and not planning to use either of them including this one), so it would be unfair for me to vote for or against this particular library, but just reading mails arriving from this list and having some experience in exception handling I am wordering why in the list of questions for reviewers there is no question about whether the name of the studied library corresponds to its essense, or it is too wide or biased. If to continue this thought, there may be many other important questions missed. Regards Igor Smirnov