Re: Exception specifications on functions useless?

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 10:04 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> it would IMO be nice to nevertheless have information about functions'
> exception behaviour around, in a form suitable for mechanical
> verification.  (For example by disabling GCC's -fno-enforce-eh-specs
> for --enable-dbgutil builds.)  But maybe that's only a hopeless pipe
> dream of mine, anyway...

Aren't we already doomed in the sense that if we take any signature
like..

virtual sal_Bool SAL_CALL foo(void) throw( uno::RuntimeException )

then if that foo is implemented using various bits of boost magic or
stl, and there's surely thousands that are, then they can throw loads of
stuff, under various edge-conditions, which are unrelated to
uno::RuntimeException unless foo does a pile of catching and converting
std::exceptions into uno::RuntimeException ?

Anyway, I'm a fan of a binary "throws no exceptions", "can throw any
exception" given the direction of the C++11 tide.

C.