Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exception safety guarantee
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-12 17:39:57
David Abrahams wrote:
> Is *that* the core issue here? Because it seems like the issue has
> been about various other things earlier in this conversation.
The core issue, if I remember correctly, is that when a library uses
boost::function internally without ever calling it while NULL and the user
compiles with exceptions disabled, he needs to supply a definition of
boost::throw_exception even though it will never be called.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk