Re: How on earth did noexcept get through the standards process?
In article <eZ6dnWRdDP0BCQTQnZ2dnUVZ8ladnZ2d@bt.com>,
Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> wrote:
I believe that the motivation behind 'noexcept' was to pull the
functionality of throw() out of exception specifications
I thought the motivation was to address the problem that containers
cannot take much advantage of move constructors if those constructors
can throw. This being C++, we like general mechanisms to solve specific
problems.
1) We can provide more detailed requirements for that case without having t=
o
add verbiage to everywhere that throw specifications are mentioned.
Because it has defined semantics, it really isn't about requirements
anymore. It does not say that the body isn't allowed to throw; rather,
it says what happens when the body throws an uncaught exception.
This is the reason that much of the Madrid standards meeting was spent
removing most of the noexcepts that were added in Batavia and replaced
with "throws nothing" in the documentation.
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com> 773 961-1620
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]