Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Proposed BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW macro
From: Alec Ross (alec_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-29 09:44:53
"Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> writes
>Beman Dawes wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
>> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > Le 28/08/12 23:22, Beman Dawes a écrit :
>> >> I'm not enamored with the BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW name, so
>> >> feel free to offer suggestions for alternate names.
>> > 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
>I agree that the name is long, but it is clear.
>What about BOOST_NOTHROW? It doesn't transition well to an all-C++11
>world (only noexcept), but both throw() and noexcept mean the function
>emits (or should emit) no exceptions, so the name conveys the right
>idea. Maybe BOOST_THROWS_NOTHING to avoid the old connotation of
-- Alec Ross
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk