Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Proposed BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW macro
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-29 07:40:56
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
> Le 28/08/12 23:22, Beman Dawes a écrit :
>> The three current BOOST_NOEXCEPT* macro variants miss the case where
>> C++03 code has a "throw()" throw-specifier. Classes that derive from
>> standard library exceptions need this to avoid breaking code on C++03
>> I'm not enamored with the BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW name, so feel free to
>> offer suggestions for alternate names.
>> Here is the full set of macros:
>> #ifdef BOOST_NO_NOEXCEPT
>> # define BOOST_NOEXCEPT
>> # define BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW throw() <---- new macro
>> # define BOOST_NOEXCEPT_IF(Predicate)
>> # define BOOST_NOEXCEPT_EXPR(Expression) false
>> # define BOOST_NOEXCEPT noexcept
>> # define BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW noexcept <---- new macro
>> # define BOOST_NOEXCEPT_IF(Predicate) noexcept((Predicate))
>> # define BOOST_NOEXCEPT_EXPR(Expression) noexcept((Expression))
>> Unless there are objections, I'll commit the changes Wednesday
>> afternoon Eastern US time.
> I have no major problem with the additional macro BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW ,
> but I don't see why it should be committed so quickly.
No real need, just wanting to clear it off my "half-done" list. (With
Git, I could just stash my changes, but that's a bit of a pain with
> I will cal it BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW.
I considered that, but was put off by its length.
BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW is clearer and the transition from throw()
to noexcept is confusing, so let's got with BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW
> My question is what macro will you use you implement noexcept in
> Boost.System. If you don't want to break c++03 compilers I think it should
> be BOOST_NOEXCEPT. Could you confirm?
Anything currently decorated with throw() has to use BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW.
class my_error : public std::runtime_error
const char* what() const throw()
For a C++03 compiler, replacing the throw() with BOOST_NOEXCEPT is
equivalent to removing it.
gcc 4.7 in C++03 mode will report an error:
'virtual const char* std::runtime_error::what() const throw ()'
Even for compilers that don't report this as an error, it is a silent
change in semantics that can be avoided by using
For example, class system_error has three signatures that need
noexcept for C++11. All three of these are currently marked throw(),
so all three have to be replaced with BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk