Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exception safetyguarantee
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-12 19:59:50
Daniel Walker wrote:
> But the coupling with Boost.Exception is only there to implement the
> exception safety guarantee of operator().
Your terminology is wrong. Both variants of operator() have the same
exception safety; and even if they didn't, nobody uses "strong exception
safety" to mean "throws an exception when such-and-so".
The issue is not coupling with Boost.Exception, the issue is that the user
has to supply a definition of boost::throw_exception when exceptions are
disabled. This was true before there were Boost.Exception.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk