On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Emil Dotchevski <emil@revergestudios.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Pete Bartlett <pete@pcbartlett.com> wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
[..] But don't go foisting on me a whole new layer of work [...]
Sadly, by introducing boost::serialization::throw_exception, you have foisted work on me and other users of your library. Now we have to implement boost::serialization::throw_exception instead of just having one boost::throw_exception. This is exactly the kind of breakage you've been so strongly opposed to.
You didn't have to implement boost::serialization::throw_exception. That was your own decision, which I don't intend to object. I've learned that simply because I don't see the logic behind a given decision, doesn't mean that it was illogical.
Oh, DUH I *completely* misunderstood the previous post! Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode