This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: May I propose an extension and ask how difficult this would be?
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Subject: Re: May I propose an extension and ask how difficult this would be?
- From: "George T. Talbot" <george at moberg dot com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:33:13 +0000
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: Moberg Research, Inc.
- References: <199911192216.OAA26037@kankakee.wrs.com>
Mike Stump wrote:
> That laguage would not be C++. I don't favor this type of extension.
I'm sorry if my previous post wasn't clearly written enough.
I wasn't asking for a different type of language. throw ( type ) already
exists as a way to qualify function/method calls as throwing a particular type
of exception. I was asking for a compiler option to emit warnings that would
help me to debug my code by analyzing those throw ( type ) function/method
qualifiers (or whatever they're called) and making sure that I either catch
the exceptions thrown in the function, or explicitly declare those exceptions
as thrown by my program.
Trying to get exception handling correct is far more difficult for me when the
only tools for analyzing the exception handling in a large program are my
fallible eyes and brain. ;^)
I am, of course, assuming that the reason that the throw ( type )
function/method qualifiers are already in the language is to perform this sort
of analysis, and I could be wrong about that.
George T. Talbot