On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Lee Hellrung wrote:
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.
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.
There are two cases. In C++03, some functions had to be decorated with throw(), but most, even if they didn't throw, were left with no decoration because throw() is a pain for multiple reasons.
Beman created BOOST_NOEXCEPT to handle the latter case: a function that throws, and hopefully is documented as throwing, nothing becoming noexcept in C++11. Now he needs a macro that is noexcept in C++11, but throw() in C++03.
Given that BOOST_NOEXCEPT has already been used for the former, another name is needed for the latter.
"BOOST_NOTHROW" is short, conveys the right idea, but isn't forward looking. Then again, when we can ignore C++03, s/BOOST_NOTHROW/BOOST_NOEXCEPT/ would bring all code into C++11 without harm.
That's an interesting suggestion. We already have BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST, so I'm still leaning toward BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW just for consistency. We can do a global change to BOOST_NOEXCEPT for that name, too, when we no longer want to support C++03 compilers. Given that it is a 3-day holiday weekend in the US, I'll give it another day or two. But then we need to move on to higher priority work. --Beman