Hi Tobias, Tobias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i agree with dave and still prefer the backward compability from an user's > point of view, > because using local memory managers without special patching was definitly > not possible. > that's why 100% of all custom memory managers out there are > exception-neutral and don't care about local memory management at all. Your mistake is in assuming that everyone realizes that there is a problem with exception handling and local memory managers. This is definitely not the case (As I mentioned before I found a potential bug in my implementation). If we don't make the function pure virtual we will let all those users keep using their potentially-buggy implementations without knowing it. Because there are not many custom memory managers, I think it is ok to inconvenience a few smart users in order to help the not so smart ones (including myself) to realize they may have a problem in their code. Just have some compassion for the less fortunate ones, guys ;-). Plus making the function pure virtual is the right thing to do should we be designing the interface from scratch. Boris -- Boris Kolpackov, Code Synthesis Tools Open source XML data binding for C++: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsd Mobile/embedded validating XML parsing: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsde --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
