Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exception safetyguarantee
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-12 19:59:50
Daniel Walker wrote:
> But the coupling with Boost.Exception is only there to implement the
> exception safety guarantee of operator().
Your terminology is wrong. Both variants of operator() have the same
exception safety; and even if they didn't, nobody uses "strong exception
safety" to mean "throws an exception when such-and-so".
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk