Subject: Re: [boost] [inspect] exceptions (FW: [Boost-users] no exceptions)
From: Gruenke, Matt (mgruenke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-26 02:23:11
On Fri 3/25/2011 10:33 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> > What does that have to do with anything?
>
> This has to do with effect of BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION on the time it
> takes to compile your program. I count that as cost.
That is true. I was under the impression that it you mentioned it to downplay the runtime cost. I apologize for my misunderstanding.
I support any analysis of its various costs, as it lets users and (for now) library authors make a more informed choice about whether and how to use it.
> >> Second, consider that this is only the default behavior. All this
> >> functionality disappears if you #define BOOST_EXCEPTION_DISABLE.
> >
> > Huh? But that changes the behavior of the code, breaking it in places that depend on exceptions.
>
> You seem to be confusing BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS with
> BOOST_EXCEPTION_DISABLE. Both change the behavior of
> BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION:
Yes, you are correct. The macros have a clumsiness, though. If I have a library with both internal and external exceptions, it's only practical to enable or disable the features of BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION() on a per-source file basis.
Also, if a library with only internal exceptions uses BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION() along with BOOST_EXCEPTION_DISABLE, then what benefit does that provide over just telling inspect to disregard use of 'throw' in the library (or certain parts of it)?
Matt