[boost] Re: Pedantic changes to noncopyable

From: Miki Jovanovic (miki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-18 11:30:46

dave abrahams <abraham-_at_[hidden]> wrote: 
> We eschew exception-specifications at boost. For the reasons why,
see...
> 
> [Sheesh, Beman, I guess this comes up often enough that we ought to
get the
> rationale on the site. Egroups is a lovely host but their search
engine
> leaves something to be desired. I can't find the original posting.]
> 
> In brief, they provide no compile-time safety and lead to worse
generated
> code on many (if not most) compilers.

Hi Dave,

To be perfectly honest, I do not mind either way. However, what I do
mind is inconsistent code. If we get trivial methods in shared_ptr to
be declared throw() I would expect throw() to be used on all methods.
Or, the other way around, removing throw() everywhere. Inconsistent
code like this will confuse a good programmer, let alone a newbie who
is looking at our code. It is harder to explain that throw() is
irrelevant, then to explain that we could not be bothered to be
consistent.

Cheers,

Miki.