From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-10 06:12:32
> Do you plan to continue to support configurations/platforms lacking
> exceptions (through boost::throw_exception)?
Yes, absolutely, it should be using throw_exception rather than throw
anyway, but I'll double check.
> If so, what would the replacement to this be:
> #ifdef BOOST_REGEX_NON_RECURSIVE
> // unwind all pushed states, apart from anything else this
> // ensures that all the states are correctly destructed
> // not just the memory freed.
OK that's a bug :-) Needs replacing with a non-catching version (since we
can't unwind the stack anyway without exceptions).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk