Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Fourth release, requesting preliminary review again
From: Marius Stoica (letto2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-04 05:50:36

On Thursday 03 June 2010 19:53:04 Chad Nelson 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.

I just realised that nothrow integer wouldn't compile with -fno-excetpions.
I was assuming that was it's point. I was thinking maby instead of using
exceptions you could do something like this in the implementation

if (n = maloc(...) == NULL) exceprion_fun(out_of_memory);
that could be a function that throws with exceptions and handles the error for

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