What is nothrow for?

[janderson]

Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2008-04-25 03:23:39 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> 
> said:
> 
>> Janice Caron wrote:
>>> So I guess my question is, in what circumstance would "nothrow" be
>>> helpful? And is it helpful /enough/ to warrant "polluting" all library
>>> code with "nothrow" annotations?
>>
>> "nothrow" is, as you say, a contract. It specifies that a function 
>> must return normally (unless it aborts, crashes, or hangs).
> 
> I presume "aborts, crashes, or hangs" should also include "asserts". 
> After all, one can't assert in release mode so it doesn't hinder the 
> part about better code generation.
> 
> 
>> 4. destructors cannot throw exceptions (because they are already in 
>> one). Andrei has proposed a method to deal with this, but it is as yet 
>> unimplemented.
> 
> Hum, I wonder, can one assert in a destructor?
> 

It shouldn't include asserts.  Asserts can be disabled and don't cause 
the problems that exceptions do.

-Joel