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

From: Chuck Allison (cda_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-13 16:14:08

std::exception was defined before STL was heard of outside of Alex
Stepanov's research. I find that many people use and promote the use of
std::exception as a base class for user exceptions. There is no official
dogma either way.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 2:16 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Attempting resolution of Threads & Exceptions Issue

> Somewhere, Bjarne says that std::exceceptions are basically for internal
use
> of STL and not meant for the basis for exceptions in every framework. Now,
> certainly boost is an exception to that rule.
>
> I will find the quote when I get home later...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
> Sent: Tuesday, 2002:August:13 3:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Attempting resolution of Threads & Exceptions Issue
>
>
> 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"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>