Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-15 01:55:50
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 12/14/16 6:06 PM, Nat Goodspeed wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I think that there has been a lot of confusion about what
>>> BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION is suppose to do.
>>> My understanding was that it was a macro intended to support the writing
>>> portable code that could run on platforms which didn't support
>>> exceptions or
>>> where the user / author didn't want to use the exception mechanism so he
>>> could redefine the macro. Lot's of libraries used this idiom to decouple
>>> their libraries from the the selection of exception mechanism.
>> I admit that my usage of BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION is fairly recent, but
>> that use case is not even mentioned:
> Right. Because the semantics of BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION were changed and
> the documentation updated to the new semantics.
False, the semantics of BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION have never changed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk