Re: [boost] [config] Proposed BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW macro

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Proposed BOOST_NOEXCEPT_NOTHROW macro
From: Alec Ross (alec_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-29 09:44:53

In message 
<33DFA071B6DD6D4FB44851BDE4A72593198373_at_[hidden]>, 
"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
>> BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW
>
>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 
>"NOTHROW"?

BOOST_NO_THROW?

-- 
Alec Ross