Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Fourth release, requesting preliminary review again
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-03 17:33:34

Hash: SHA1

On 06/03/2010 02:04 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:

>> I'm not sure that's really an improvement. The current design
>> separates throwing and nonthrowing for a reason; take a look at
>> some of the function implementations and you'll see why. Combining
>> those would mean, at the very least, an extra if statement in
>> every function.
> What if the policy class provided the behavior you would otherwise
> control with a conditional? For those policies in which the behavior
> is not needed, the inline, static member function would do nothing.
> For those in which the behavior is needed, the member function would
> do the work unconditionally. Changing the policy changes the
> behavior, so no need for a conditional.

The above didn't fit with what I thought you guys meant about
policy-based stuff. Now that I've corrected that misperception, it looks
like it might be a viable answer to at least some of the options. But
I'm not sure how to apply it to the throw/nothrow option... I'll
experiment with it further and ask if needed.
- --
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at