Subject: Re: [boost] noexcept BOOST_EXPLICIT_OPERATOR_BOOL
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-25 11:15:08
On Friday 25 April 2014 17:09:03 Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
> Although I am not entirely convinced that any not throwing function (except
> for moves) should be marked as noexcept, I can see that noexcept starts to
> get into Boost. explicit operator bool appears to be a good candidate, but
> macro BOOST_EXPLICIT_OPERATOR_BOOL does not offer it. So I have to choose:
> use the macro or noexcept.
> Perhaps the macro could be expanded to give an option to add noexcept, but
> that would spawn two macros
> (BOOST_EXPLICIT_OPERATOR_BOOL and BOOST_CONSTEXPR_EXPLICIT_OPERATOR_BOOL)
> into four.
> Are four macros for almost the same purpose acceptable? Or do I have to
> abandon the idea of making the operator noeaxcept. Are there any
I think, noexcept could be added to the existing macros rather safely using
BOOST_NOEXCEPT_IF/BOOST_NOEXCEPT_EXPR. I could do it if no one objects.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk