[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-4678?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
yuanyuan chen updated THRIFT-4678:
----------------------------------
Description:
The C++11 standard has deprecated the usage of throw() to express exceptions,so
to avoid warnings from the compiler,I think this option is useful.
I have a pull request in github,this issue is created to track it.
Some questions remain:
1.Should we change the runtime c++ library to use BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW?
2.Should we add an control option to enable all c++11 options?
3.Should we begin to support C++17 features?,I think std::optional should be
used to implement optional keyword,but this is clearly an API breaking
change,so we need an c++17 control option.
was:
The C++11 standard has deprecated the usage of throw() to express exceptions,so
to avoid warnings from the compiler,I think this option is useful.
I have a pull request in github,this issue is created to track it.
Some questions remain:
1.Should we change the runtime c++ library to use BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW?
2.Should we add an control option to enable all c++11 options?
3.Should we begin to support C++17 features?,I think std::optional should be
used to implement optional keyword,but this is clearly an API breaking
change,so we need an compiler option to control it.
> add noexcept cpp generator option
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-4678
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-4678
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: C++ - Compiler, C++ - Library
> Affects Versions: 1.0
> Reporter: yuanyuan chen
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.0
>
>
> The C++11 standard has deprecated the usage of throw() to express
> exceptions,so to avoid warnings from the compiler,I think this option is
> useful.
> I have a pull request in github,this issue is created to track it.
> Some questions remain:
> 1.Should we change the runtime c++ library to use BOOST_NOEXCEPT_OR_NOTHROW?
> 2.Should we add an control option to enable all c++11 options?
> 3.Should we begin to support C++17 features?,I think std::optional should be
> used to implement optional keyword,but this is clearly an API breaking
> change,so we need an c++17 control option.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
