On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 15:28, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2855.html#noexcept
I gather that
noexcept void f() { throw 0; }
is supposed to be ill-formed versus well-formed
noexcept void f() { noexcept { throw 0; } }
invoking undefined behaviour.
Well, this is not helpful.
Both forms shall be well-formed with defined behaviour: invocation of unexpected() at throw point.
But then if you have this: noexcept void f() { noexcept { bar(); } } I don't see how you're going to get the "at throw point" you're asking for. There's always catch (...) if you need to make sure, so treating it as a "ok, I'll believe you" mark in the compiler makes good sense to me. I figure it'd end up like const: A real pain to add in just a few places if you don't use it much, but once it propagates around it'd because automatic and rarely bypassed. ~ Scott