Re: [[gtkmm] Alternate libglademm interface]

[Christer Palm <palm nogui se>]

joey yandle wrote:
> 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 ;(

It should be quite obvious that this cannot be enforced at compile time 
without breaking just about every piece of existing code out there. I 
guess a warning would have been nice in an obvious case like that, but 
that's rather a GCC problem, isn't it?

> I find throw() clauses in c++ to be worse than useless, and do nothing to
> improve code quality.

So if that's worse than useless, what's the alternative?

I assume that we agree to the importance of a user of a class to know 
what exceptions are thrown by a particular method. So where, would you 
say, is the better place to put it? A comment in the declaration? In the 
docs? Trust the users sixth sense?

--
Christer Palm