Re: boost.threads [was RE: [boost] Re: sockets /network programming Requirements]

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-07 13:56:50

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hillel Y. Sims" <hys420_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: boost.threads [was RE: [boost] Re: sockets /network programming
Requirements]

> "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> >> There's something I can't lay my fingers on:
> >> EH is dynamic, and very 'loose': its very easy to forget
> >> to catch some exception you should have caught.
> >
> >Naw, almost every try ought to come with a catch(...) at the end.
>
> What should it handle in the general case (other than cleanup stuff that's
> maybe not already handled by destructors)?

If you agree that you almost never have a local recovery action for a
specific problem (i.e. "out of disk space? => wait until user hot-swaps in a
new raid array"), then it is unlikely that it is useful to try to handle the
specific case.

> Do you recommend the exception
> be rethrown or eaten?

Depends what you're trying to do.

> I thought the general idea was to only catch locally
> those exceptions that are meaningful to the local operation and that you
> know how to handle, except maybe at some outermost layer where you could
> actually do something meaningful with (...) (log it, dump stack, etc)?

How often does it actually come up that you have a handy solution that's
specific to a particular problem?
-Dave