Fix to compile with Visual C++ and /Zc:implicitNoexcept-.

[jaykrell]

Otherwise gets:
Error C2694 'override': overriding virtual function
has less restrictive exception specification than base class virtual
member function 'base'

Similar changes are being made e.g.:
boostorg/json#636

See also, similar from me:
boostorg/format#85

[pdimov]

This PR doesn't look correct, because it uses noexcept and override unconditionally. This will cause errors for C++03 and on MSVC versions earlier than 2015 (or 2013, I don't remember which version introduced noexcept.)

These need to be BOOST_NOEXCEPT and BOOST_OVERRIDE, respectively. Perhaps just BOOST_NOEXCEPT, because override isn't necessary here.

[jaykrell]

Ok. Serious question then: instead of = default should I use { }?
Or is that going to "too old" compiler?

[jaykrell]

Since you specifically said C++03 I suspect I should go with { }.

[mclow]

Since you specifically said C++03 I suspect I should go with { }.

How about BOOST_DEFAULTED_FUNCTION? (see https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_77_0/libs/config/doc/html/boost_config/boost_macro_reference.html#boost_config.boost_macro_reference.macros_that_allow_use_of_c__11_features_with_c__03_compilers)

[rdoeffinger]

I think you should squash the 3 commits into a single one, as it's not desirable to have not-quite-correct versions in the history.
Note: I am not speaking with any particular authority, just making a drive-by comment...

[jaykrell]

I think you should squash the 3 commits into a single one, as it's not desirable to have not-quite-correct versions in the history. Note: I am not speaking with any particular authority, just making a drive-by comment...

I agree, but, is it approved othewise? That can be done upon commit in the GitHub gui, including editing the commit message.

Opinions vary and are strong about PR workflow.
I've seen people, reviewing my code, request strongly never to rebase a PR, as it makes the PR harder to read.
Even if then squash upon commit is the only choice.

[mclow]

This looks OK to me.

[jaykrell]

@mclow I squashed and rebased, ok?
(Is squash really required? A lot of repositories are configured to do that upon commit, not optionally.
Imho that is 99% the right policy. Unless maybe CI runs and passes at each commit, and users and reviewers agree the history reads ok/better with multiple commits. But I've never seen this.)

[pdimov]

Closing/reopening to retrigger CI.