On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Robert Ramey
On 12/15/16 5:37 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
Because the semantics of BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION were changed and the
documentation updated to the new semantics.
BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION did not exist before Boost.Exception, so no, it wasn't changed.
Sorry, my mistake.
It wasn't BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION. It was boost::throw_exception whose semantics were changed in an unanticipated and surprising way. It seems to me that it might be that this was being proposed again. Maybe my concerns are overblown as those who got burned the first time by this policy have already eliminated dependency on boost::throw_exception.
We can't objectively discuss how unanticipated or surprising anyone thinks a code change is, but the change to boost::throw_exception (so many years ago) did not break existing code, the only observable difference is that any exception emitted by boost::throw_exception can now be caught as boost::exception. Emil