Is an empty throw clause in a function declaration/definition part
of the standard or is it still experimental.

eg.

void foo() throw();

void foo() throw()

{
  ...
}


--
Ross Dargahi
Medical Informatics & Computing Research Program
Office of VP For Information Technology
Baylor College of Medicine                          email: rossd@bcm.tmc.edu
3730 Kirby, Suite 1165,                             Tel:   713.798.8391
Houston, Texas 77098, USA.                          Fax:   713.798.8389

>>>>> Ross Dargahi <rossd@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu> writes:

> Is an empty throw clause in a function declaration/definition part
> of the standard or is it still experimental.

It is part of the current WP.  On the other hand, there is a proposal to be
considered at the X3J16 meeting next week which would remove all exception
specifications from the language; I don't expect it to pass, but I could be
wrong.

Jason

In article <JASON.94Jul7162555@deneb.cygnus.com> jason@cygnus.com (Jason Merrill) writes:

> It is part of the current WP.  On the other hand, there is a proposal to be
> considered at the X3J16 meeting next week which would remove all exception
> specifications from the language; I don't expect it to pass, but I could be
> wrong.

I wouldn't mind that: as presently defined, I don't think that
exceptiomn specifications are very useful.  It's a good idea, but only
if it's done right---and doing it right, in my opinion, would require
a major redesign of much of the language.  I wouldn't be sorry if the
exception specifications we've currently got disappeared.

--
       Matt Austern                       "Se non e vero, e ben trovato"