From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-04 09:07:18
So why don't we just have a replaceable handler function that can
throw or abort or whatever?
At 03:19 AM 11/4/2002, Peter Dimov wrote:
>From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
>> At 12:48 AM 11/3/2002, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
>> >Throwing an exception, on the other hand, causes the stack to be
>> >thus throwing away all of that information. When debugging, throwing an
>> >exception on a logical (programmer) error is the last thing in the world
>> >want to happen.
>> Surely your debugger allows you to trap the exception at the point it is
>> thrown, so that the stack (and everything else) at that point is available
>> for inspection? Isn't that equivalent to getting a core dump, yet
>> preserves the benefits of exceptions in non-debugging environments?
>No, because beta testers typically don't run your program under a debugger.
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk