Sebastian Redl wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Sebastian Redl wrote: [...]
So throw() is deprecated. That doesn't change the fact that its behavior is very similar to what you propose for noexcept.
No, throw() injects catch(...) and I certainly don't want that for noexcept.
The only difference between that and your proposal is whether destructors between the call site and the catch are called before unexpected() is called. Which is pretty irrelevant, really.
I don't quite agree. The fact that users can set an unexpected handler seems to indicate that the application ought to be in a well-defined state at the point where that function is called. I would certainly assume that the stack has correctly unwound until it hit a point where the exception is not allowed to pass. Thanks, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...