An update to this issue following the recent meeting of the ISO C++ body. The form of wording that was agreed on says:
Unless an explicit "noexcept" annotation is given, the destructor C::~C() should be "noexcept(true)" if none of the base or member destructors is "noexcept(false)", regardless of the contents of the destructor's function-body. As Maciej says, the solution for SOCI will be to explicitly annotate the affected destructors with "noexcept(false)" for C++0x. [ If you wish to see the actual language change the paper is at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3204.htm and the last working draft of the new standard is at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3225.pdf. ] Regards, Roger Orr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Maciej Sobczak wrote: > Hello, > > For those who are interested in the language evolution, here > is a fresh > post related to the last standard committee meeting that mentions the > throwing destructors problem and the SOCI library: > > http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk/cplusplus/cplusplus-sta ndards-committee-mailing-october-2010.html It looks like the solution will be very easy, although the problem can potentially harm the code that will be recompiled without being upgraded. We will have to keep an eye on this issue. Regards, -- Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What happens now with your Lotus Notes apps - do you make another costly upgrade, or settle for being marooned without product support? Time to move off Lotus Notes and onto the cloud with Force.com, apps are easier to build, use, and manage than apps on traditional platforms. Sign up for the Lotus Notes Migration Kit to learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/salesforce-d2d _______________________________________________ Soci-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/soci-users
