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
> > 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
> 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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk