On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Wed Aug 29 2012, Roland Bock <rbock-AT-eudoxos.de> wrote:
On 2012-08-29 15:31, Beman Dawes wrote:
My thinking was that there was some small advantage to beginning each of the noexcept macros with BOOST_NOEXCEPT.
I worry that BOOST_THROWS_NOTHING would be misconstrued as a replacement for "Throws: Nothing" specifications, and that isn't the case. BOOST_NEVER_THROWS might be a bit better. But I think I still prefer BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW. Or the original suggested BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW.
--Beman
BOOST_NOEXCEPT_AND_NOTHROW ? OR sounds like a choice.
Should just be BOOST_NOEXCEPT, IMO. Design for the future.
We already have a BOOST_NOEXCEPT that expands to nothing in C++03, right? I understood the point of this proposed macro was to support those decorators on virtual functions that were "throw ()" in C++03 but got changed to "noexcept(true)" in C++11. - Jeff