Re: [boost] [config] Proposed BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW macro

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Proposed BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW macro
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-02 12:19:51

on Wed Aug 29 2012, Roland Bock <rbock-AT-eudoxos.de> wrote:

> On 2012-08-29 15:31, Beman Dawes wrote:
>>
>>
>> My thinking was that there was some small advantage to beginning each
>> of the noexcept macros with BOOST_NOEXCEPT.
>>
>> I worry that BOOST_THROWS_NOTHING would be misconstrued as a
>> replacement for "Throws: Nothing" specifications, and that isn't the
>> case. BOOST_NEVER_THROWS might be a bit better. But I think I still
>> prefer BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW. Or the original suggested
>> BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW.
>>
>> --Beman
>>
>
> BOOST_NOEXCEPT_AND_NOTHROW ? OR sounds like a choice.

Should just be BOOST_NOEXCEPT, IMO.
Design for the future.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing                  Software Development        Training
http://www.boostpro.com             Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers  C++  Boost