Le 21/06/12 19:12, Robert Ramey a écrit :
Sorry but suggesting we just revert something back to a way it never actually was in the first place, after it's been functioning apparently OK for 4 years, and which users may well have been relying on over that time isn't going to wash. lol - I guess the best arguement against my proposal would be to say
John Maddock wrote: that my proposal at this point (if that's what it was) would be engaging in the same practice that I've been arguing against in the first place. Which would be a tough argument to counter. It's sort of like eating my own tail. lol
If this discussion prevents some future library author from gratuitously extending the dependencies of existing code, it will have been worthwhile.
Still, I would like to consider one thing that might inprove things;
a) boost::throw_exception would be deprecated. (not changed) b) the same facility would be invoked by:
#include<boost/exception/throw_exception.hpp> ... boost::exception::throw_exception ....
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. Best, Vicente