On 13 Oct 2005, at 7:41 AM, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
yeah, if it were in one of those books it could be added to the -
weff-c+
+ option. It doesn't seem sensible to add a different option for an
alternative (set of?) coding rule(s).
FYI this is item 13 in MEC++.
It is on just about any decent modern C++ coding guide/list somewhere.
I think this would be a good error to have. My suggestion is to
file an
enhancement request in gcc bugzilla, with this code:
#include <stdexcept>
void
foo()
{
try
{
}
catch (std::logic_error e)
{
}
}
saying that with -Weffc++, you want a warning. Include a link back to
this thread, so that who-ever works on this can read the initial
reaction and the suggestion by Nathan to hook into
finish_handler_parms.
Yes, thanks for all the feedback.
I will look at the code mentioned earlier.
In the near past, Giovanni has done a good job of enhancing the More
Effective C++ rules. If you ask nicely, maybe he'd do the same for
this.
That would be great and I will ask very, very nicely and offer to
help any way I can however...
I didn't want this totally tied to -Weffc++ unless there was also a
separate switch for turning it on/off because:
1.) Last time I checked g++'s own standard library headers did not
pass -Weffc++ cleanly and hence I couldn't get a clean build of my C+
+ code using -Weffc++.
2.) A lot of other 3rd party C++ headers including the last version
of Boost I was using (admittedly a relatively old version, maybe
version 1.30) didn't pass -Weffc++ cleanly.
3.) People have many times debated the validity/usefulness of some of
the warnings that -Weffc++ produces and I think it's better to have
individual switches for each warning in -Weffc++ and then -Weffc++
just becomes a batch switch that turns on the individual switches en
masse.
best,
benjamin
