Subject: Re: [boost] The noexcept Specifier & Block
From: Sebastian Redl (sebastian.redl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-17 09:54:56
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 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
The only difference between that and your proposal is whether
destructors between the call site and the catch are called before
unexpected() is called. Which is pretty irrelevant, really.
> With or without*** static checking, noexcept specifier is much better
> than throw().
Leaving implementation issues, such as the overhead of catch(...),
aside, what exactly are the advantages of noexcept over throw() under
>> 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?
I can turn most type mismatch compile errors into undefined behavior by
using reinterpret_cast. What's your point?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk