At Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:49:55 -0700, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
At Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:27:23 -0700, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
That said, "libraries should generally use BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION" is a good rule for Boost, and I wouldn't mind having something like it in the inspect tests, provided that libraries with a legitimate reason not to use it can be registered as exceptions to the rule.
Maybe I'm missing something but what is an example of such a legitimate reason?
For example, "it buys nothing, because the library can't really work as coded without exception support." Such is the case for Boost.Python, I believe.
Whether it makes the library useful in BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS builds is best left for the user of the library to decide.
No, really. Python throws exceptions as a matter of course (e.g. loop termination). These get translated into C++ exceptions.
At any rate, you gain nothing from not using BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION.
One fewer dependencies? Not that I really care; I'd be happy to use it. It's just that it's also very easy for me to imagine that some libraries might be exceptions to the rule.
Besides, even if the library remains useless in BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS builds, I wouldn't say that BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION buys nothing.
What does it buy in this case? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com