Having not read the entire thread, I risk reiterating an idea that may have
already been brought up, but I believe I've got a few thoughts that may be of
value... and if somebody's already mentioned them, I hope they take this as a
compliment and a vote in their favor.
> Otherwise as
> you said
Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
> Jason Merrill wrote:
>> Sergio Giro wrote:
>>> I perceived that many people think that the throw qualifiers, as
>>> described by the standard, are not useful
>>
>> Yes. But that's not a reason to add a slightly different non-standard
>> feature that would require peop
Brendon's point is a good one:
It avoids having to define special attributes in the code, the only
difference is the set of command line flags you pass to the compiler.
It does however mean that you cant provide function level
"enable/disable of static checking". I.e. It will check for all
functi
Jason Merrill wrote:
Sergio Giro wrote:
I perceived that many people think that the throw qualifiers, as
described by the standard, are not useful
Yes. But that's not a reason to add a slightly different non-standard
feature that would require people already using standard exception
specifi
I prefer the method Jason mentioned of including this functionality as
a form of more strict checking of -Wexception-specs (Or maybe defining
a new warning) as opposed to having an attribute that defines new
semantics.
In the end the two are practically identical. The semantics of the
existing "OL
Mike Stump wrote:
Let me try again. The standard way to add a new qualifier in g++, is
to add it in an attribute, please do that.
OK, I agree. Let's say that a method will be declared as
int method() throw(std::exception) __attribute__((static_exc_check));
(this is intended to have the same mea
On Apr 10, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Sergio Giro wrote:
Maybe I missed some point: why everything should be rewritten?
Let me try again. The standard way to add a new qualifier in g++, is
to add it in an attribute, please do that. The possible responses
are, no, I want to be different, or ok. If
With respect to this:
Jason Merrill wrote:
Yes. But that's not a reason to add a slightly different non-standard
feature that would require people already using standard exception
specifications to rewrite everything. That's just a non-starter.
Maybe I missed some point: why everything should
Sergio Giro wrote:
I perceived that many people think that the throw qualifiers, as
described by the standard, are not useful
Yes. But that's not a reason to add a slightly different non-standard
feature that would require people already using standard exception
specifications to rewrite eve
I perceived that many people think that the throw qualifiers, as
described by the standard, are not useful, as an example, I quote the
Boost Exception-specification rationale:
Although initially appealing, an exception-specification tends to have
consequences that require very careful thought to
Sergio Giro wrote:
I started a thread about the possible development of a throw-like
qualifier for C++ which may statically check that the only possible
exceptions are those declared in the qualifier (please see the
corresponding thread:
I'm strongly opposed to adding a new qualifier with sl
Hello,
I started a thread about the possible development of a throw-like
qualifier for C++ which may statically check that the only possible
exceptions are those declared in the qualifier (please see the
corresponding thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg01162.html
12 matches
Mail list logo
