From: Peter Bartlett (pete_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-20 12:03:53
Quoting Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>:
> It looks like for some compilers, the preprocessor macros alter the
> to disabled - even though those compilers actually can
> throw exceptions so the new behavior is even more
> complex and arbitrary than I thought.
Are you sure?
To make sure we are on the same page, I am looking at:
An exception is not thrown if and only if BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS is defined.
This has always been the case.
It sounds like you are interpreting "BOOST_EXCEPTION_DISABLE defined"
to mean "exception not thrown" but that's not the case. It merely
disables the new functionality the Boost.Exception library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk