Boost logo

Boost :

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-16 11:51:39

--- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > I'm just trying to "feel out" the pros and cons of using an actual
> > exception, which can be caught in a catch(...) block. If there
> > compelling reasons to want the "exception" to be non-catchable
then I
> > can present these reasons to the committee and they can decide
> > whether or not it's worth requiring a language change to allow for
> > this "kissing cousin".
> A programmer that wants to catch the cancellation exception may
have good
> reasons to do so. In particular, letting an exception escape from a
> destructor during stack unwinding terminates the process, no
> asked. ;-)

That's not a reason to catch the request, it's a reason to DISABLE
requests. A cancellation "exception" can be uncatchable and still be
safe in cases such as this.

> Making this exception non-catchable by catch(...) may also break
> code (in the sense that it may silently become exception unsafe.)

Care to explain in detail?

Bill Kempf

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