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
affected?
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
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: http://lists.boost.org/ mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost