Why doesn't boost use empty throws() list?
For example, all the smart pointer headers have: // never throws Next to their definitions, rather than an actual "throws()". I'd guess this has to do with compiler compatibility, but there are already plenty of macro hacks for enabling/disabling details like this on a compiler by compiler basis. Just curious.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Joseph Garvin
For example, all the smart pointer headers have:
// never throws
Next to their definitions, rather than an actual "throws()". I'd guess this has to do with compiler compatibility, but there are already plenty of macro hacks for enabling/disabling details like this on a compiler by compiler basis.
Just curious.
Read this guideline documentation for the rationale: http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Exception-specification Regards, Eugene Wee
For example, all the smart pointer headers have:
// never throws
Next to their definitions, rather than an actual "throws()". I'd guess this has to do with compiler compatibility, but there are already plenty of macro hacks for enabling/disabling details like this on a compiler by compiler basis.
Just curious.
Here's a good explanation from H. Sutter: http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill22.htm Cheers, -- Nikolai
For example, all the smart pointer headers have:
// never throws
Next to their definitions, rather than an actual "throws()". I'd guess this has to do with compiler compatibility, but there are already plenty of macro hacks for enabling/disabling details like this on a compiler by compiler basis.
Just curious.
participants (4)
-
Eugene Wee -
Igor R -
Joseph Garvin -
Nikolai N Fetissov