Boost logo

Boost :

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-04-12 08:48:30

--- In boost_at_y..., Jesse Jones <jesjones_at_h...> wrote:
> >Again, std::vector::at() exists for precisely this reason, and C++
> >programmers use it in precisely the same manner as IndexError is
> >used. I don't agree that we have a completely different culture in
> >this case. There are many C++ programmers that want, even need, to
> >insure their programs never crash... that they can catch errors,
> >possibly handle them, and continue running.
> Throwing for DbC violations is not going to help you reach this

First, we're not necessarily talking DbC here. I wouldn't consider
the semantics of at() to be a DbC model.
> Once this happens you know you've found a bug but there's no way to
> know if you've found it early enough to avoid corrupting the state
> the system. I think most software of this ilk would rather shutdown
> than chance continuing with a possibly corrupt app.

There's a huge difference between "shutdown" and "halt". In many
cases it's possible to handle errors with out needing to shutdown at
all, but even in the worst cases many programs will *NEED* to
shutdown in some proper manner (save data first even if it may be
partially corrupt, spawn a new instance to insure other incoming
requests are handled, etc.) and a program halt, whether it's from an
assert or an access violation, etc., is simply disastrous.

Bill Kempf
> -- Jesse

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at