Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review

Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-15 14:34:58

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.
>

We can't objectively discuss how unanticipated or surprising anyone thinks
a code change is, but the change to boost::throw_exception (so many years
ago) did not break existing code, the only observable difference is that
any exception emitted by boost::throw_exception can now be caught as
boost::exception.

Emil