Warnings for unhandled c++ exceptions?

[Andreas Schwab]

Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:

|> 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.

The only occurence of "illegal" that I could find is in [diff.dcl].  There
are also two occurences of "legal" in a footnote of [class.virtual] and in
[diff.decl].  Anyone for a DR?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."