Subject: Re: [boost] [inspect] exceptions (FW: [Boost-users] no exceptions)
From: Gruenke, Matt (mgruenke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-26 02:23:11
On Fri 3/25/2011 10:33 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> > What does that have to do with anything?
> This has to do with effect of BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION on the time it
> takes to compile your program. I count that as cost.
That is true. I was under the impression that it you mentioned it to downplay the runtime cost. I apologize for my misunderstanding.
I support any analysis of its various costs, as it lets users and (for now) library authors make a more informed choice about whether and how to use it.
> >> Second, consider that this is only the default behavior. All this
> >> functionality disappears if you #define BOOST_EXCEPTION_DISABLE.
> > Huh? But that changes the behavior of the code, breaking it in places that depend on exceptions.
> You seem to be confusing BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS with
> BOOST_EXCEPTION_DISABLE. Both change the behavior of
Yes, you are correct. The macros have a clumsiness, though. If I have a library with both internal and external exceptions, it's only practical to enable or disable the features of BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION() on a per-source file basis.
Also, if a library with only internal exceptions uses BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION() along with BOOST_EXCEPTION_DISABLE, then what benefit does that provide over just telling inspect to disregard use of 'throw' in the library (or certain parts of it)?
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