Re: [boost] [config] Proposed BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW macro

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Proposed BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW macro
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-02 13:19:36

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> 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.

We already have a BOOST_NOEXCEPT that expands to nothing in C++03, right? I
understood the point of this proposed macro was to support those decorators
on virtual functions that were "throw ()" in C++03 but got changed to
"noexcept(true)" in C++11.

- Jeff