Re: [boost] noexcept BOOST_EXPLICIT_OPERATOR_BOOL

Subject: Re: [boost] noexcept BOOST_EXPLICIT_OPERATOR_BOOL
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-25 14:21:03

2014-04-25 17:15 GMT+02:00 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>:

> On Friday 25 April 2014 17:09:03 Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 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
> > recommendations?
>
> 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.
>

Yes, make it noexcept if operator! is noexcept. That couldn't possibly hurt
anyone.