Subject: Re: [boost] The noexcept Specifier & Block
From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-17 10:09:37
Sebastian Redl wrote:
> 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.
I don't quite agree. The fact that users can set an unexpected handler
seems to indicate that the application ought to be in a well-defined
state at the point where that function is called. I would certainly
assume that the stack has correctly unwound until it hit a point where
the exception is not allowed to pass.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk