Re: [boost] Domagoj Saric: "Re: [function] invoking without requiring boost::throw_exception"

Subject: Re: [boost] Domagoj Saric: "Re: [function] invoking without requiring boost::throw_exception"
From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-06 21:13:46

> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Peter Myerscough-Jackopson
> <peter.myerscough-jackopson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> As others have noted, a common idiom for using a boost function object is to check if it is non-empty prior to calling it, is it an unreasonable extension to add this call? I am aware TR1 has subsumed “function” and so it is probably not possible remove the if-clause, but adding an unchecked invoke has significant benefits, [unchecked_invoke(), might be a better name than purely invoke()].

Another possible solution to this particular problem is to change the
call to boost::throw_exception to BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION
(http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/exception/doc/BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION.html)
and then change boost/throw_exception.hpp to not define
BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION if it is already defined by the user.

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode