20 Jun
2012
20 Jun
'12
11:56 p.m.
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 have criticised the way it's introduction into boost was handled. The few posts in the thread which have addressed my critcism have failed to convince me that I'm off track here. Robert Ramey.