Warnings for unhandled c++ exceptions?

[Phil Edwards]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:08:13PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> writes:
> 
> | On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 08:37:00PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> | > Because I was reading the C++ FAQ LITE yesterday. :-)
> | > I thought his definitions were apt.
> | > They are strong words though; maybe I should drop them.
> | 
> | The FSF and RMS have some psychological hangup with calling code "legal" or
> | "illegal".  (My own opinion is that, as long as the ISO language standard
> | uses it, RMS can take a leap.)
> 
> C++ definition does not use such strong words.  Rather, it speaks of 
> "well-formed"/"ill-formed" program constructs.

I don't recall where, but a text search of the standard will show otherwise.


Phil

-- 
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
                                                 - Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002