Le 22/06/12 01:55, Robert Ramey a écrit :
Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Hi Robert,
I propose you a different thing. Instead of changing again the name of boost::throw_exception, we can add something like boost::throw_strict_exception that will either throw the given exception or no throw at all depending on BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS as it was the case before the introduction of Boost.Exception.
Nothing wrong with this idea. It would address the situation where multiple libraries are re-implenting the same functionaliy to avoid the extra dependency. (I'm not all that crazy about the name - maybe boost::maybe_throw_exception). So I'm on board with this if we can't get a concensus on fixing the root problem.
I don't see any other way if backward compatibility must be preserved ;-) I like the maybe_ prefix. It states clearly the intent of the function. What about boost::maybe_throw(e)? It is shorter and closer to the throw(e) it is a replacement of. Could you see if the authors that have its own throw_exception version share the approach? Best, Vicente