On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
It is clear that you don't approve of the current definition of boost::throw_exception. That's fine, you don't have to use it, but if you want to criticize it, it'd help if you first understand it. Otherwise you end up making unsubstantiated claims, rather than pointing out real problems.
lol - I haven't critcised boost exception. I only understand it in the very vaguest terms. I've said this in as many ways as I can think of. I don't know what else to do.
I'm confused. I thought you were complaining about build times and dependencies. I mean, if there is a problem with boost::throw_exception or any other part of Boost Exception, I'd like to know about it. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode