Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exception safetyguarantee

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 
> strong
> 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.