Boost logo

Boost :

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).

------------------------------------------------------------------------ home: - Simplifying group communications

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at