On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Dave Abrahams wrote:
I'm not sure how to create progress for Robert, unfortunately.
lol - then it doesn't matter as it seems I'm (almost) the only one that is concerned by this.
The problem was the gratuitious inclusion of a new dependency. The extent/nature of any problem it created or didn't create is not relevant here. Just the injection of a new body of code which replaced two lines and added no functionality used/needed by the serialization library makes the any library which used boost::throw_exception "bigger" for no reason.
You seem to think that if a library doesn't benefit from calling boost::throw_exception, then the call to boost::throw_exception can't benefit the users of the library. As a matter of fact this is not true. There are practical benefits (to Boost users) from what you call "bigger", while the downside remains abstract.
It makes the library more "fragil". It means I have I a new place to look if something needs looking into. etc.etc.
Sorry, I just can't understand why anyone fails to see this point.
Because you keep talking in the abstract. You'll have better luck if you point out a practical issue with boost::throw_exception.
So we'll just move on as Vicente suggested. That will be satisfactory from my standpoint.
Your satisfaction notwithstanding, there needs to be a reason to change how Boost deals with exceptions. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode