Re: [boost] Exception specifications in smart_ptr.hpp

From: Valentin Bonnard (Bonnard.V_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-21 13:44:17

Mark Borgerding wrote:

> In theory, I love the concept of throw specifications; describing exceptions as part
> of the method invocation, almost as part of the signature 

You mean type, don't you ?

> -- telling both the class
> user and the compiler exactly what can possibly be thrown, It seems clear however,
> that they can cause a performance hit on some compilers.

Indeed.

> Perhaps there is a middle ground.
> 
> Since at least one compilers *is* apparently capable of using a throw() to their
> benefit 

What kind of benefits ? Time ? Space ? Both ?

``at least one compilers *is* apparently'' is pretty vague.

> (or at least doing no harm) ,  it would be a shame not to take advantage of
> such a compiler.  Perhaps we should use a preprocessor macro that would expand to an
> empty throw-spec or nothing, depending on the compiler flags.  In either case, the
> class user will be informed of the behavior of the method with regard to exceptions.
> That way, the intent of "throw()" can be documented in the code, even if the macro
> expands to nothing.
> 
> e.g.
> 
> #ifdef   BOOST_BAD_EMPTY_THROW_SPEC
> #  define BOOST_NOTHROW
> #else
> #  define BOOST_NOTHROW throw()
> #endif

I have used a THROW macro in my code for this purpose.
Still, on an inline function, it never helps the compiler.

-- 
Valentin Bonnard