From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-07-07 21:13:57
On 2020-07-07 18:05, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Niall Douglas wrote:
>> We discussed whether adding an alternative naming for copy_exception()
>> could be called a major change.
> It is both major (API change) and potentially breaking (code that
> already defines its own make_exception_ptr may break).
Not that I'm arguing with classification of this change as a major one,
but I wouldn't consider it a breaking one as I don't think adding any
symbols to a library namespace (except where explicitly allowed by
contract) is a valid use of the library. This is the same stance as the
standard C++ library is taking with regard to user's definitions in
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk