on Thu Sep 11 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Sep 11 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
Okay, Robert. Now your concerns have been taken seriously, and, I think, addressed. Is that correct, and if so, can we move on? If not, what is left to deal with?
nothing - I move on some time ago.
This question has been raised why I put it into boost::serialization::throw_exception instead just using boost::throw_exception for the for user override. This is the decision which I believe is causing your grief. First of all, it's not clear to me anymore what boost::throw_exception should do - its not obvious that its equivalent to the old boost::throw_exception.
You won't take the word of Emil and Peter that it is?
No - I asked for a pledge that if this happened in the future it would be considered a bug.
Whom did you you ask for a pledge?
Since I didn't get one, there's no reason to believe it won't happen in the future. Rather than belabor the point, I just decided not to use the library until I have to time to look into it.
I don't understand what "happening in the future" has to do with this particular library. Could you explain?
But throw_exception is not a similar case in any way. The things you were asked to move were *definitions* that were placed into namespace boost rather than into the serialization library. You didn't have a definition of throw_exception to move.
OK - I can easily implement vincent's suggestion. That should do it.
Great. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com