Re: [boost] [hash][array][stacktrace][type_index] Adding noexcept to hash

Subject: Re: [boost] [hash][array][stacktrace][type_index] Adding noexcept to hash
From: Richard Hodges (hodges.r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-12-04 06:54:17

Adding a noexcept specification (i.e. making an interface more restrictive)
sounds like a breaking change to me. Although it's the correct thing to do,
surely anyone who has an override of hash_range in their code will be
affected?

Isn't it more correct to offer noexcept and noexcept(false) interfaces with
the latter being deprecated?

On 1 December 2017 at 21:27, Daniel James via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I want to add noexcept support to the hash library, but a few
> libraries (array, stacktrace, type_index, maybe more) forward declare
> hash_range for themselves, causing errors if I add a noexpect
> specifier to hash_range. If I move hash_fwd.hpp into the core module,
> so that it doesn't add a dependency on the functional module, would
> they be okay with including it from there?
>
> thanks,
>
> Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/
> mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>