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

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-13 14:52:13

At Tuesday 2002/08/13 06:24, you wrote:
>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.

I'd like a citation for this piece of advice, please.  IMO, NOT using 
std::exception would be foolish.

>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.)

you and I must "read" a different language.

>----- 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

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"