Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and exceptions
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-21 05:14:02
> Here's the real situation. One invests a HUGE amount of effort
> that it takes to get a libary over the various boost hurdles. I don't
> think
> very many people have any idea what it takes to get something
> like file_system, serialization, or others into boost. After this
> huge initial effort you've got to spend some time cleaning up some
> detail and handling user complaints, upgrading documentation etc.
> (don't even mention the time it takes to deal with boost tools).
> So now you can sort of relax as things settle down, you've responded
> to all the questions by upgrading your documentation, etc. etc.
> Of course by the time this happens, you're way behind on your
> "real" work and trying to catch up with that.
For sure, and I've been bitten by that a few times, come to that I think I
may have caused that a few times for which I apologise.
I also was seem to dimly remember being bitten by the changes to
Boost.Exception when they happened, but you no what? Not once since, never.
That's a pretty good record IMO.
> FWIW, I think boost.exception would have had much better reception from
> other authors if the author had
>
> a) implemented as I proposed.
> b) let it "rippen" over a couple of releases.
> c) made a pitch/case to other library authors about what the benefits
> would
> be if his library were included instead of the traditional way of doing
> things
> d) explained how users would appreciate the "upgrade".
> e) explained how there wouldn't be any downsides.
> f) explained how the library author wouldn't really have to do anything
> but a couple of simple edits.
> g) and accepted the fact that it would take time for people to migrate.
> h) and accepted the fact that in spite of his best efforts, he might not
> be able to convince everyone.
All of which are good arguments, except they're *4 years too late*.
Sorry but suggesting we just revert something back to a way it never
actually was in the first place, after it's been functioning apparently OK
for 4 years, and which users may well have been relying on over that time
isn't going to wash.
Surprising how fast time goes yours, John.