From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-14 12:40:18
At Wednesday 2002/08/14 09:00, you wrote:
>From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> > From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> > > From: "Anthony Williams" <anthwil_at_[hidden]>
> > > >
> > > > In general, it is not possible to propagate arbitrary exceptions
> > > thread
> > > > boundaries [...]
> > >
> > > ... without compiler support. "Ordinary" exception handling already
> > provides
> > > the necessary primitives.
> > Seriously? Care to give an outline of how that would work using existing
> > constructs?
>Well, I am not a compiler writer, but it seems to me that to implement
>"throw;" and "catch", the compiler already needs a way to copy the
>exception, complete with its original type. :-)
I don't see that at all. The catch() clause specifies the type it's
expecting and it will be copied and sliced if need be to match.
>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"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk