Warnings for unhandled c++ exceptions?

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> writes:

| 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.

If you find such things, then you're encouraged to fill a due DR
against the C++ definition.  Really.

-- Gaby