Boost logo

Boost :

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-29 19:36:38

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:20 AM Niall Douglas via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 1. Me personally, if I want to write success-orientated logic where I
> don't write out, inline, what happens for each failure, I just write
> code which uses C++ exceptions. I mean, there is a perfectly good
> implementation of LEAF already shipping with every C++ compiler for the
> last twenty years. It is called "C++ exception handling".

When used with exceptions, LEAF is "what if catch could be given many
arguments which are matched statically instead of by dynamic_cast?"
Exceptions would have been more useful were they designed this way, for
example they would not need to be allocated dynamically.

> 2. I, personally speaking, think that the shops which globally disable
> C++ exceptions do so because they specifically wish to ban the use of
> C++ exceptions type code in their codebases. Ergo, they would also ban
> the use of LEAF, because this exact pattern and style of code is what
> they are banning, and globally disabling C++ exceptions is a simple way
> of achieving this.

I'm confused, what style and pattern are they banning? How is what they use
instead semantically different?

> 4. The lack of built-in support for C++ Coroutines I find unfortunate.

I intend to work on that. I'm not sure I should. :)

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