15 Dec
2016
15 Dec
'16
4:59 p.m.
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. Robert Ramey