On 25 June 2012 18:29, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Daniel James wrote:
On 25 June 2012 17:43, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Mathias Gaunard wrote:
The whole point of the system is that there is a single place where you enable Boost.Exception support for all libraries.
The original point of boost::throw_exception() was to provide a fallback when exception support is not available. That it now enables Boost.Exception support is the problem for some.
Everything's always a problem for someone. Maybe it should have been opt-in rather than opt-out (for the user), but I don't think that would be an appropriate change now.
I'm not suggesting that.
I didn't think you were.
yet their libraries should be supported when exceptions are not.
Supported by whom?
I meant that there should be a standard Boost mechanism for such libraries to have a no-exceptions fallback without Boost.Exception support. (If the community decides that Boost.Exception support is required, then this wouldn't be needed.)
I would hope a developer would be capable of doing that themselves, all they need to do is call 'boost::throw_exception' when BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS is defined. They could perhaps ask Emil to supply a header that just declares it. Having two exception mechanisms would be confusing.