Exception specifications on functions useless?
sbergman at redhat.com
Wed Mar 21 04:02:48 PDT 2012
On 03/21/2012 11:37 AM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> for the case where it is a good idea to check exceptions (e.g. Java UNO
> bridge, which cannot throw exceptions to the Java side that are not
> declared on the interface), a runtime catch-all check should be
> sufficient also.
Yep, guards to catch attempts of throwing anything not allowed by UNO
across a bridge are generally in place.
> but i wonder if there is any compatibility concern here; i'd be more
> comfortable if we only removed the exceptions specifications for LO4 and
> not earlier.
Removing exception specifications from the C++ headers generated by
cppumaker and from C++ classes defined in the URE interface should
actually be compatible.
More information about the LibreOffice