On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
At some point, the definition of BOOST_NO_EXCEPTION was hijacked to mean to something completely unrelated and totally different. This broke a bunch of other libraries and resulting in problems that plague us to this day. and of course the same goes for BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION.
BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION (the macro) has never been changed, it did not exist prior to the acceptance of Boost Exception. Would anyone object if I changed these back to the original (sensible)
meanings?
You probably mean boost::throw_exception. Yes, I object that being changed because that would handicap Boost Exception. Note that users of Boost Exception need other Boost libraries to throw exceptions using boost::throw_exception in order to take advantage of Boost Exception. You state that boost::throw_exception isn't sensible. Care to elaborate? Normally I don't knowingly write non-sensible code. :) Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode