Re: Throwing default constructors of containers
On 18 Sep., 20:02, rani_shar...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 6:07 am, rani_shar...@hotmail.com wrote:
Are there any STL implementations in which the default constructor of
std::string or std::vector can throw? Is there any good reason for
doing so (beside strict compliance)?
I have only a limited set of STL implementations available, namely
- Rogue Wave (1999)
- Dinkumware (2005)
- GNU ISO C++ Library (2005)
(The number in parentheses is the most recent year of the copyright)
None of them has a failable std::string or std::vector, but
it seems that you already knew these libraries, so this
information is probably of little new interest for you.
It seems not so very unusual for me to think of a failable
vector default c'tor if you accept the design choice to
create a default-constructed vector with an initial non-zero
capacity (allocated via the free store), but I don't think
that this a overwhelming convincing argument (N.B.: Typical
Java libraries do have this approach).
I know that the VC-STL dinkumware based implementation of, for
example, std::list default constructor might throw but other
implementations don't (e.g. libstdc++ and Metrowerks). Is there any
reason to prefer the implementation that might throw (i.e. trying to
allocate the list's head)?
I don't think so.
In general, are there any STL implementations that try to enforce the
exception specifications of the standard library (e.g. in debug
builds) so that it will be possible to find incorrect usage during the
testing?
For example, since std::string default constructor never threw, it's
not possible to find incorrect usage (via testing) due to the wrong
assumption that it has no-fail guarantee.
I'm not sure that I properly understood this point. What do you mean
with "try to enforce exception specifications" in this context?
I'll appreciate any comments.
I'm sorry for the little feedback, this is an interesting question.
I'm not sure how far-reaching your thoughts are but I would not
like a basic guarantee that *every* container must have a non-failable
default c'tor (You did not say that, I just want to make sure this
point).
Greetings from Bremen,
Daniel
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]