I'm not sure what good being a language lawyer is going to do in
cases like this. In both cases the code is not compromised in the least,
and the validity of the complaint is in as much question as the code (if not
more).
The first case has to be valid just from a logic perspective.
Exceptions don't allow multiple bi directional traversals of the stack, thus
once caught there is no way of doing any of the returns passed along the
way.
The second is a style issue at best.
73,
Shawn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen torri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 2:10 AM
> To: cryptopp
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pubkey.h, modexppc.h, ec2n.h, eprecomp.h, ecp.h
>
> On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 00:47, Wei Dai wrote:
> > These are both extraneous warnings that I won't bother "fixing". In the
> > first case, throwing an exception is a perfectly valid way of exiting a
> > function without returning a value. The compiler should be smart enough
> to
> > figure it out, or at least provide a way to disable the warning. GCC
> does
> > not do either. In the second case, it's optional to declare a destructor
> > on a derived class when the base class has a virtual destructor. The
> > compiler should provide a default destructor when needed. What is the
> > point of writing extra code to do exactly what the default destructor
> > does, just to satisfy the compiler?
>
> I am going to ask a few people I know about your two remarks here. I am
> not sure I understand the first completely. The second one I believe is
> not entirely correct. I will get back this.
>
> Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen Torri
> GPG Key: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~storri/storri.asc
