In message <33DFA071B6DD6D4FB44851BDE4A72593198373@xchmbbal503.ds.susq.com>, "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> writes
Beman Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Le 28/08/12 23:22, Beman Dawes a écrit : ...
I'm not enamored with the BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW name, so feel free to offer suggestions for alternate names.
I will cal it BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW.
I considered that, but was put off by its length. BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW is clearer and the transition from throw() to noexcept is confusing, so let's got with BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW
I agree that the name is long, but it is clear.
What about BOOST_NOTHROW? It doesn't transition well to an all-C++11 world (only noexcept), but both throw() and noexcept mean the function emits (or should emit) no exceptions, so the name conveys the right idea. Maybe BOOST_THROWS_NOTHING to avoid the old connotation of "NOTHROW"?
BOOST_NO_THROW? -- Alec Ross