RE: [boost] Re: Attempting resolution of Threads & Exceptions Issue

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-13 09:59:23

Eric,

Stroustrup has had his back-and-forths regarding exceptions...
 
It is rather strange, although positive that he says what you state,
which is something I have also tried certain people to understand here.
Termination is the "good ol'" way of dealing with really exceptional
behavior, which should indeed be frown upon. Agree.

By the way, which reference book was you referring to? The one by
Josutti or The C++ Programming Language (third ed.?) by Strousrup?

/David

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Eric Woodruff
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:24 AM
To: boost
Subject: [boost] Re: Attempting resolution of Threads & Exceptions Issue

Hrm, it's interesting that Stroustrup writes "... it would be a mistake
to
assume that every exception derived from exception is a standard library
exception...", when elsewhere I believe that it is frowned upon. My
point
is, that user exceptions likely aren't derived from std::exception and
shouldn't be. It would be a big mistake for Boost.Threads to only
support
std::exceptions, especially since an already demonstrated implementation
does not preclude user defined types. (While it would be possible to
create
a throws_std_exceptions policy, it would probably be too limited for
inclusion in boost.)

Another Stroustrup quote :) "A library shouldn't unilaterally terminate
a
program. Instead, throw an exception and let a caller decide."

(I'd refer to Josuttis's book to see what you're talking about, but
since it
was a requirement in a course I co-designed, I found it to be one of the
most unreadable references available--I traded it in at a used
bookstore.)

----- Original Message -----
From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
Sent: Tuesday, 2002:August:13 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Attempting resolution of Threads & Exceptions Issue

At Monday 2002/08/12 16:31, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
> > [Un?]fortunatly, as far as I know, the end user is required to
specifiy
>the
> > exceptions they would like propagated.
>
>Are they?  If we agree to this, then the argument that others have made
>about library threads terminating is now a complete non-argument...
unless
>you expect to be able to specify the (theoretically) infinite number of
>exceptions that could occur.
>
>But I'm not sure this premise is true.  The easiest implementation
would be
>to convert all unhandled exceptions into a single thread_terminated
>exception during propogation (possibly being nice enough to duplicate
the
>what() results of std::exceptions).  Even if we go the extra mile of
>providing propogation of specified exception types as-is, we can still
>translate all other exception types as thread_terminated, or in this
case a
>better named unexpected_thread_termination.

I'd vote for (and help implement) a duplication of ALL of the
std::exceptions mentioned in Nicolai Josuttis's book (section 3.3.1) and
any others which may be in the standard (deriving from std::exception)
and
not mentioned in "The C++ Standard Library".

>Bill Kempf
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost