2016-09-03 21:43:05 |
Ross Younger |
description |
Destructors should never throw.
The jury is out on whether declaring exception specifiers in general is worthwhile.
Should destructors should be nothrow? i.e.
virtual ~SomeClass() throw() { ... }
Consider using std::nullptr instead of NULL. |
Destructors should never throw.
The jury is out on whether declaring exception specifiers in general is worthwhile.
Should destructors should be nothrow? i.e.
virtual ~SomeClass() throw() { ... }
throw() is deprecated in c++11.
Since c++11: void f() noexcept;
If an exception propagates from a noexcept function, that's an insta-termination offence.
Consider using std::nullptr instead of NULL. |
|
2016-09-04 07:51:08 |
Ross Younger |
description |
Destructors should never throw.
The jury is out on whether declaring exception specifiers in general is worthwhile.
Should destructors should be nothrow? i.e.
virtual ~SomeClass() throw() { ... }
throw() is deprecated in c++11.
Since c++11: void f() noexcept;
If an exception propagates from a noexcept function, that's an insta-termination offence.
Consider using std::nullptr instead of NULL. |
Destructors should never throw.
The jury is out on whether declaring exception specifiers in general is worthwhile.
Should destructors should be nothrow? i.e.
virtual ~SomeClass() throw() { ... }
throw() is deprecated in c++11.
Since c++11: void f() noexcept;
If an exception propagates from a noexcept function, that's an insta-termination offence.
Consider using nullptr instead of NULL or 0 constant. |
|