Subject: Re: [boost] The noexcept Specifier & Block
From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-17 09:20:17
Sebastian Redl wrote:
> So throw() is deprecated. That doesn't change the fact that its behavior
> is very similar to what you propose for noexcept.
No, throw() injects catch(...) and I certainly don't want that for
With or without*** static checking, noexcept specifier is much better
> I still think that the compile error for noexcept-marked functions is
> something we definitely want.
So that you can turn such compile errors into undefined behaviour using
noexcept blocks or just swallow exceptions?
***) See e.g. http://www.mindview.net/Etc/Discussions/CheckedExceptions
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk