After a recent discussion in this forum where I posted my idea to the
of the advertised throw specification (eg: throw(Foo, ...)
I suggested what I have found legal:

throw(Foo, void)

which acts as no exception-specification as it allows any exception to be
thrown (MSVC++ 5.0 and g++ 2.7.2.2 are my tested platforms) but also
allows a visual cue as to the primary exceptions - though serves no other
useful purpose.

My question is:

if:

void FuncName(void) {}

is the same as:

void FuncName() {}

then why is:

void FuncName(void) throw(void) {}

the same as

void FuncName() {}

and not the same as

void FuncName() throw() {}

It seems an unintutitive way for this to be handled.  If, as Stroustrup
says in TC++PL 3rd, 5th.  (page 76)  "it [void] can, however, be used only
as part of a more complicated type, there are no objects of type void."
then shouldn't this generate a compile time error - just as if I had
tried to throw(FooException) and had not decl. a class FooException?

I have tried scouring the draft and TC++PL for info on this topic but
haven't found an adequate answer.  Could someone elaborate as to whether
my compilers are broken or whether the behaivor (as I suspect) is deemed
to be undefined?

Robert Horvick

     +-----------------------+----------------------------------------+
     |   Robert P. Horvick   | http://www.cord.edu/homepages/rphorvic |
     | Great Plains Software |   Concordia College, Computer Science  |
     |   rhorvick@acm.org    |        calloc(1, sizeof(geek));        |
     +-----------------------+----------------------------------------+


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

In article bgs@sonic.cord.edu, rphorvic@gloria.cord.edu (Robert Horvick) writes:
>After a recent discussion in this forum where I posted my idea to the
>of the advertised throw specification (eg: throw(Foo, ...)
>I suggested what I have found legal:
>
>throw(Foo, void)

Some compilers might accept this construct, but it is not valid
according to the C++ draft standard.