At Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:50:13 -0700, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Peter Dimov <pdimov@pdimov.com> wrote:
The issue is not coupling with Boost.Exception, the issue is that the user has to supply a definition of boost::throw_exception when exceptions are disabled. This was true before there were Boost.Exception.
Okay, and could someone please explain to me what is wrong with that requirement?
Maybe someone else should do that but I think I understand it.
Suppose you're a subcontractor who develops a library for another company. Internally, you use boost::function and so your library requires the executable to define boost::throw_exception.
Ooooh. We don't have a way for the library to define boost::throw_exception. Riiight. I think we could fix that pretty easily, though. Those places in Boost that use boost::throw_exception could switch to something like this: boost::detail::throw_(e); where we define: namespace boost { template <class X, bool=false> struct throw_ { throw_(X const& x) { boost::throw_exception(x); } }; namespace detail { template <class X> throw_(X const& e) { boost::throw_<X>(e); }; } } and then the 3rd-party library author could just: namespace boost { template <class X> struct throw_<X> { throw_(X const&) { /* whatever */ } }; to force the behavior to something else. He'd just need to make sure that specialization was included before boost::detail::throw_ was instantiated. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com