[ 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 like moveable_types .etc? 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 c+17 control option. > 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 like > moveable_types .etc? > 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)