From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-29 13:16:25
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:37:11 -0500, "Jeremy Day"
>Greetings, everyone. This is my first time posting here, so if I screw this
>up, please bear with me.
>On 6/29/06, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I afraid I still don't know the rule as to when you need to provide a
>> throw() specifier rather than just documenting that a function never
>> Is there guidance from exception experts?
>I have spoken with Bjarne Stroustrup about this [...] Thus, exception
>guarantees should be documented in comments (or in some other variety of
>documentation), rather than through throw() specifications.
But Beman was specifically talking about throw() [read: no-throw], not
exception specifications in general. Our docs say:
FWIW, my style is to use the throw() on exception classes; basically
because it reminds me to double check the implementation for unwanted
sources of exceptions --std::string being a common one.
PS: out of curiosity, Jeremy, didn't you ask why the don't get removed
from the standard then?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk