[boost] Re: Misc library documentation issues

From: Reid Sweatman (reids_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-09 17:09:43

> If the function is not decorated, then you should assume it 
> can (and will)
> throw exceptions. Part of the problem is that compilers don't 
> (currently)
> check exception specifications. The committee are considering 
> a change (in
> the distant future!) to make exception specifications part of the type
> system which would allow compilers to do more stringent 
> checking - much in
> the style of Java.

When you say that compilers don't check X-specs, what do you mean by that?
They're clearly generating code for exception handling; even MS <g>.  Do you
mean that they don't bother to check whether the decoration is empty, so
they can not generate code?

> For now, I'd leave your "throw()" specs in there. If your 
> functions call
> something that can throw exceptions, your function should 
> check and handle
> such exceptions.
 
I tend to agree, for the simple reason that I didn't write everything my
functions call, and so I can't be sure, since some of the programmers here
like C++ exception handling, and others despise and won't use it (I think
largely because they first tried it under VC++ 5.0 with no SR's, and it
didn't work remotely up to spec).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications