Re: [[gtkmm] Alternate libglademm interface]

[joey yandle <jwy divisionbyzero com>]

>
> throw specifiers are actually used in Glib, so they shouldn't cause any
> porting issues that are not already there. Personally I love them - they
> definitely help to improve your code quality.
>

I find throw() clauses in c++ to be worse than useless, and do nothing to
improve code quality.  Check out the following code:

========
#include <exception>
#include <iostream>

class foo_exception : public std::exception {
public:
   virtual const char* what() const throw() { return "foo"; }
};

class bar_exception : public std::exception {
public:
   virtual const char* what() const throw() { return "bar"; }
};

void foo() throw(foo_exception) {
   throw bar_exception();
}

int main(int argc, char** argv) {
   try {
      foo();
   } catch(std::exception& e) {
      std::cout << e.what() << std::endl;
   }

   return 0;
}
==========

As you would expect, the throw() clause guarentees that foo() will only
throw foo_exception.  However, when bar_exception is thrown, the app
abort()'s, because it can't throw() it.

In Java, this code wouldn't compile; the compiler would insist on
foo() either catching or throwing bar_exception.  But in c++, this isn't
the case.  So by putting a throw() clause, we've guarenteed that the app
will abort if presented with an exception not in the throw clause.  I
find this to be extremely bad ;(

cheers,
--
If video games really affected kids, we'd all be running around in dark
rooms, munching on pills, and listening to electronic music.