Boris Kolpackov wrote:
Hi David,
David Bertoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If they were using a local MemoryManager instance in their code, they would
likely have already tripped this bug.
I had this bug in my code and was not aware of it until I added that
function as pure virtual. The reason for this is that exceptions are
not normmaly thrown so this bug can linger on undetected for a while.
Then you need to step up your testing. I found it in about a day. ;-)
And if they haven't tripped over it, my change doesn't modify the
behavior of their code.
You mean you change prevents them from detecting and fixing the bug?
I don't think it's a very strong motivation ;-).
I'm not a big fan of breaking APIs in general, and I'm even less a fan of
breaking APIs to find what are potentially bugs in client code that can be
avoided and discovered through proper design and testing.
I doubt there are many MemoryManager implementations out there period, much
less users who are going to be hit by this bug. And they can find it just
by testing properly.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
