[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: define HAVE_EXCEPTION makes sense ???
|
From: |
David Sugar |
|
Subject: |
Re: define HAVE_EXCEPTION makes sense ??? |
|
Date: |
Wed, 8 Jan 2003 08:16:34 -0500 |
|
User-agent: |
KMail/1.4.3 |
At one time we built Common C++ so it could also work on broken libraries that
did not have std/exception. I suspect that this has become rare enough that
it has not been tested or used by anyone that way for a long time now...
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 06:10, address@hidden wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I wonder what for is the define HAVE_EXCEPTION.
> Undefine this the code wont compile properly. Because some classes trow
> exceptions and need the <exception.h>.
>
> Thanks for pointing out.
>
> Adib.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp