Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-04 09:15:08

Terje Slettebø wrote in message <Hi7Da.9988$KF1.142210_at_amstwist00>:
> > why shouldn't std::exception use std::strings?
> See here (

 Unfortunately, operating systems other than Windows also wind non-C++
 "exceptions" (such as thread cancellation) into the C++ EH machinery

There's no such thing as 'non-C++ "exceptions"'. Brain-damaged forced
unwinding aside for a moment, an implementation provided exceptions
for thread exit, cancelation... AND synchronous-signals-translated-
to-exceptions ARE "normal" C++ exceptions. And, BTW, it's quite
reasonable to expect that they're all derived from std::exception...

 if every exception were derived from std::exception and everyone
 substituted catch(std::exception&) for catch(...), the world would
 be a better place.

The world WILL be a better place when people finally realize that
C++ DOES need a mandatory 2-phase exception handling and that the
current C++ standard is seriously broken with respect to exceptions
specs (plus a few other "less important" EH-related things). It
desperately needs some fixing.
(Subject: Exception handling... it's time to fix the standard)


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at