From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-22 17:34:15
Kevlin Henney <kevlin_at_[hidden]> writes:
> In article <uwuirsbc8.fsf_at_[hidden]>, David Abrahams
> <dave_at_[hidden]> writes
>>> Not quite: there is a difference between the initial construction and
>>> the copy. In an insufficient-memory condition with a compiler that
>>> creates the exception directly, rather than creating and then copying
>>> it, the exception does not become active until the constructor has
>>You don't think I know this?
> It is not what you said. What you know and what you say can be two
> different things :^)
What I said was that throwing such an exception can lead directly to
terminate(). I didn't say anything about the initial construction of
the exception. Your interpretation of what I said and what I actually
said can be two different things. There really wasn't any need to
"correct" me, was there?
>>Terje throws an exception, which causes copying.
> _May_ cause copying. I am not going to dispute the fact that the code is
> entitled to do so, but it is not a requirement. Simply moderating the
> precision of the language, that's all.
More hair-splitting. Is this really neccessary? Aren't we trying to
write portable code here?
>>> If the effect is the same, it does not matter where the string
>>> is formatted.
>>The effect is not the same though.
> Err, this is also what I said in my post a few sentences later. There
> must be an echo ;-)
I normally reply to posts point-by-point, and I sometimes don't go
back and revise just because someone starts making sense later
This has been exceedingly frustrating. If you make it difficult for
people to point out mistakes they are likely to keep silent in the
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk