On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Le 28/08/12 23:22, Beman Dawes a écrit :
The three current BOOST_NOEXCEPT* macro variants miss the case where C++03 code has a "throw()" throw-specifier. Classes that derive from standard library exceptions need this to avoid breaking code on C++03 compilers.
I think I suggested the need for that in the beginning. It is an important case as you've found.
Yeah, I remember that now. Apparently it went over my head. Apologies.
I'm not enamored with the BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW name, so feel free to offer suggestions for alternate names.
I will cal it BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW.
I considered that, but was put off by its length. BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW is clearer and the transition from throw() to noexcept is confusing, so let's got with BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW
I agree that the name is long, but it is clear.
What about BOOST_NOTHROW? It doesn't transition well to an all-C++11 world (only noexcept), but both throw() and noexcept mean the function emits (or should emit) no exceptions, so the name conveys the right idea. Maybe BOOST_THROWS_NOTHING to avoid the old connotation of "NOTHROW"?
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