On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote: ...
"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.
This finally got committed to trunk this morning, using the name BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW. Docs updated. Sorry for the delay, --Beman