RE: [boost] Exception specifications in smart_ptr.hpp

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-25 15:40:18

Reid Sweatman wrote:

 >I'm gonna admit I'm dumb and ask for clarification here.  I understand 
the
 >issues surrounding empty throw specifications, and the problem with
 >exception specifications and inlining.  But I'm unclear on whether you 
(or
 >someone earlier in the thread) are maintaining that non-empty
 >specifications
 >should *never* be used?  Or do you mean only when the function is as 
small
 >and time-critical as in smart_ptr?

No, I don't think people are saying they should never be used.

If the functions aren't inline and time-critical, and if the maintenance 
problems caused when an exception gets added to the list somewhere down the 
line are not a worry, then maybe they might make some sense.  So non-empty 
exception-specs would probably make more sense in application specific code 
that in general purpose templates, I guess.  But not too huge an app, or 
maintenance is a problem.

Others have also commented that exception-specs are like const; use 
consistently or not at all.  With const there is a clear benefit which far 
outweighs the cost.  The trade-off is not as clear for 
exception-specs.  That's probably why you don't seem them used a great 
deal.

--Beman