[Clam-devel] throw specifications

[David García Garzón]

I fully aggree with you, indeed i guess that most developers do too. That's 
why i guess that if some exception specification is used it might be a reason 
for it, for example in exception object methods when inheriting from 
std::exception. Maybe they are not justified but just try.

David.


On Monday 18 May 2009 10:49:16 Dirk Griffioen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to make a small remark about the throw-specifiactions: I think
> they should be avoided (and if possible, removed).
>
> As Herb Sutter writes:  http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/082.htm:
>
>
> *4.* When is it worth it to write exception specifications on functions?
> Why would you choose to write one, or why not?
>
> In brief, don't bother. Even experts don't bother.
>
> Slightly less briefly, the major issues are:
>
>     Exception specifications can cause surprising performance hits, for
>     example if the compiler turns off inlining for functions with
>     exception specifications.
>
>     A runtime unexpected() error is not always what you want to have
>     happen for the kinds of mistakes that exception specifications are
>     meant to catch.
>
>     You generally can't write useful exception specifications for
>     function templates anyway because you generally can't tell what the
>     types they operate on might throw.
>
> For more, see for example the Boost exception specification rationale
> available via http://www.gotw.ca/publications/xc++s/boost_es.htm (it
> summarizes to "Don't!").
>
>
> So would it be okay if I remove them as I see them?
>
> Best, Dirk