Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 111077
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 11, 20262026-05-11T02:19:40+00:00 2026-05-11T02:19:40+00:00

I have seen some C++ classes with a destructor defined as follows: class someClass

  • 0

I have seen some C++ classes with a destructor defined as follows:

class someClass {     public:         someClass();         ~someClass() throw(); }; 

Is this a good idea?

I am well aware that destructors should never throw exceptions, but will this actually prevent me from throwing exceptions in my destructors? I’m not 100% sure what it guarantees.

Reference: this recent question

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-11T02:19:40+00:00Added an answer on May 11, 2026 at 2:19 am

    It does not prevent you from throwing exceptions from your destructor. The compiler will still let you do it. The difference is that if you do allow an exception to escape from that destructor, your program will immediately call unexpected. That function calls whatever unexpected_handler points to, which by default is terminate. So unless you do something to handle an unexpected exception, your program terminates, which isn’t altogether a bad idea. After all, if the exception really is unexpected, then there’s not really anything your program would be able to do to handle it anyway.

    This isn’t something special about destructors; the same rules apply to exception specifications for all methods.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 93k
  • Answers 93k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer After doing some research I found this article and found… May 11, 2026 at 6:34 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Check: Exception Handling Best Practices in .NET User Friendly Exception… May 11, 2026 at 6:34 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer I've answered my own question since nobody else is stepping… May 11, 2026 at 6:34 pm

Related Questions

Is there is any reason to make the permissions on an overridden C++ virtual
I have a main application class, which contains a logger, plus some general app
C++ is all about memory ownership - aka ownership semantics . It is the
I'm a C++ newbie, but I wasn't able to find the answer to this

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.