Boost logo

Boost :

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

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]>

> 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:
> mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at