Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exception safety guarantee
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-12 19:25:52

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that was the original complaint. The efficiency issue was not the
motivation of the feature request, as I understand; it was the
coupling issue. But the coupling with Boost.Exception is only there to
implement the strong exception safety guarantee of operator(). I
thought the simplest solution would be to remove the guarantee, which
the user did not want to begin with.

Daniel Walker

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