Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exceptionsafetyguarantee
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-11 13:38:41
On 11 October 2010 12:21, Emil Dotchevski <emil_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> If you don't disable exception handling, the compiler must treat the
> dynamic call in boost::function as potentially throwing. There is no
> way around that.
> (If you do disable exception handling, boost::function already does
> not throw.
Given all that, is there any more to this proposal than to take the
previously well defined behavior of calling an "empty" function and
making it undefined behavior (and not for the purpose of
optimization)? Since "undefined behavior" pretty much means we can do
whatever we want, don't we already meet that definition?
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk