Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Ulrich, <dirkude@yahoo.de> wrote:
the only requirement that exists for Boost Libraries is that they throw by calling boost::throw_exception, ...
since when is this a requirement?
I meant it is a requirement if a library that throws exceptions supports BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS builds.
Hmm - that sentence doesn't quite make sense for me. I'm supposing that it means:
"if a library throws exceptions it is required to invoke boost::throw_exception"
No, it means that if a library that throws exceptions supports BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS builds, it is required to use boost::throw_exception to throw.
Well, this is certainly news to me. I had always understood that BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS was defined for compilers which do not support the throw/catch statements. This posting starts a thread which http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2003/09/53399.php which seems to end with the statement "No, we're talking about compilers that don't support C++ exceptions at all (embedded Visual C++ for example) - hence no unwinding no matter what else may be going on. And yes it was badly worded :-) " At some point, the definition of BOOST_NO_EXCEPTION was hijacked to mean to something completely unrelated and totally different. This broke a bunch of other libraries and resulting in problems that plague us to this day. and of course the same goes for BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION. Would anyone object if I changed these back to the original (sensible) meanings? Robert Ramey I know you have your own reasons to
use a parallel implementation of boost::throw_exception, that's fine.
Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost