Re: [boost] [c++1] BOOST_NOEXCEPT macros?

Subject: Re: [boost] [c++1] BOOST_NOEXCEPT macros?
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-12 12:39:28

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> on Wed Oct 12 2011, Robert Kawulak <robert.kawulak-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> From: Beman Dawes
>>> There is another issue I should have mentioned earlier: Do these
>>> features actually impact any Boost code? We don't want to waste
>>> people's time working on config support that isn't going to be used.
>>
>> I don't know if I know the answer in general. I believe it does not apply to
>> any current Boost code, but it's a generally useful feature, so it may
>> benefit Boost code as well as users' code. And as I said, it not only
>> provides portability between C++11 and C++03 compilers, but also between
>> C++11 and MSVC. If others find it useful, I may make all the needed changes.
>
> We're not talking about BOOST_NOEXCEPT anymore, though, right?

Right. The features in question are "override" and "final". A bit of
context got lost in pruning quotes down to manageable size.

>  Because
> I believe that does/could easily apply to current Boost code.

Agreed. I've already added BOOST_NOEXCEPT to to timer, in trunk. That
was what I was working on and since the uses are very simple it seemed
a good place to get my feet wet.

In the docs, "noexcept" was added to synopsis and signatures as if for
a C++11 only library, but the actual implementation uses
BOOST_NO_EXCEPT. That keeps the docs from uglification.

--Beman