I have a question about Exception specification.  The ARM says that the
exception-specfication can be used as a suffix of a function
declarator.  My question is does this declarator need to be in the
definition too?  One compiler I use complains while another does not.

For ex.

class A
{
  void method1() throw (exception1) {}
}


Does the definition need the throw?

void A::method1() throw (exception1)
{
...
}


Thanks
Don Eddleman
Vanderbilt University
---
[ 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         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

Is exception specification allowed in a definition of
an overloaded operator? Like:

   T & operator [] (int idx) throw (BadIndex) { ... }

I didn't find a syntax for operator-functions from
the ARM and the latest C++ standard draft.

        // Albert
           (Team OS/2)
    email: jla@to.icl.fi
-----------=======================================

In article 3ed@louhi.to.icl.fi, jla@to.icl.fi (Jari Laaksonen) writes:
>Is exception specification allowed in a definition of
>an overloaded operator? Like:
>
>   T & operator [] (int idx) throw (BadIndex) { ... }
>
>I didn't find a syntax for operator-functions from
>the ARM and the latest C++ standard draft.

Yes, an exception specification is allowed. Overloaded operator functions
do not have a special syntax. The name of your example function is
"operator[]", which is just a good a name as "f", for example, so far
as syntax is considered.

---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com