Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-15 11:59:04
On 12/15/16 5:37 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> Because the semantics of BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION were changed and the
>> documentation updated to the new semantics.
> BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION did not exist before Boost.Exception, so no, it
> wasn't changed.
Sorry, my mistake.
It wasn't BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION. It was boost::throw_exception whose
semantics were changed in an unanticipated and surprising way. It seems
to me that it might be that this was being proposed again. Maybe my
concerns are overblown as those who got burned the first time by this
policy have already eliminated dependency on boost::throw_exception.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk