Why "throw std::string" is not correct?

[Cheng Mo]

Below code cannot be compiled.
try
{
throw std::string;
}
catch(...)
{
}

While below is correct.
try
{
throw std::string();
}
catch(...)
{
}

Why doesn't standard C++ parse "throw std::string" as "throw
std::string()"?

[Sharad Kala]

"Cheng Mo" <mo******@nospam.nospam> wrote in message

Below code cannot be compiled.
try
{
throw std::string;
std::string is name of a class.
}
catch(...)
{
}

While below is correct.
try
{
throw std::string();
std::string() creates an unnamed object.
}
catch(...)
{
}
It's legal to throw an object but not a class name.
Why doesn't standard C++ parse "throw std::string" as "throw
std::string()"?

They are different. That's the way language is designed, for more queries
news:comp.std.c++ should help you.

Sharad

[Dietmar Kuehl]

Cheng Mo wrote:

Below code cannot be compiled.
throw std::string;
Throw takes an object as parameter, not a type.
'std::string' is a type, not an object.
While below is correct.
throw std::string();
'std::string()' is an object (of type 'std::string').
Why doesn't standard C++ parse "throw std::string" as "throw
std::string()"?

Why should it? There is a distinction between an object and
a type.
--
<mailto:di***********@yahoo.com> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
<http://www.contendix.com> - Software Development & Consulting