🚀 go-pugleaf

clamage@Eng.sun.com (08 Dec 95):

> The current rule, related to the original question, is that function f4
> is OK, and an error results only if g actually exits via an exception.
> The alternative would be to require that every function called have an
> exception specification at least as restrictive as the calling function.

... or a try-catch statement, which catches other exceptions and must not  
re-throw them.

> Such a rule would make exceptions specifications completely useless.

If a function can throw an exception although it was declared as throw(),  
what's the point of having such a throw declaration at all ??
Wether a function can throw an exception or not could be documented with  
the meaning of the function parameters and the use of the function.
Why does the compiler need to be told this, if it doesn't do anything to  
prevent functions from behaving differently ??

================================================================================
 Claus Andre Faerber                                     <claus@faerber.muc.de>
================================================================================
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##

[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]