Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exception safety guarantee
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-12 19:25:52
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> Is *that* the core issue here? Because it seems like the issue has
>> been about various other things earlier in this conversation.
>
> The core issue, if I remember correctly, is that when a library uses
> boost::function internally without ever calling it while NULL and the user
> compiles with exceptions disabled, he needs to supply a definition of
> boost::throw_exception even though it will never be called.
Yes, that was the original complaint. The efficiency issue was not the
motivation of the feature request, as I understand; it was the
coupling issue. But the coupling with Boost.Exception is only there to
implement the strong exception safety guarantee of operator(). I
thought the simplest solution would be to remove the guarantee, which
the user did not want to begin with.
Daniel Walker