Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alan.Griffiths_at_[hidden]
Date: 2003-09-04 07:28:29

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: 04 September 2003 12:57
> Alan.Griffiths_at_[hidden] writes:
> > As already established, fundamentally the problem stems from broken
> > implementations
> Who established that, and how?

You did. Or have I jumped to a conclusion here?

It comes from a number of places - like the c.l.c++.m thread "Is internal
catch-clause rethrow standard?" and is repeated in your paper at:

The relevent bit being:

"I reluctantly concede this point to Hillel Y. Sims, who beat it into me
(<wink>): until all OSes are "fixed", if every exception were derived from
std::exception and everyone substituted catch(std::exception&) for
catch(...), the world would be a better place."

Which AFAICS is the motivation for catching via a potentially ambiguous base
class reference in the first place.

Alan Griffiths
For more information about Barclays Capital, please
visit our web site at
Internet communications are not secure and therefore the Barclays 
Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this 
message.  Although the Barclays Group operates anti-virus programmes, 
it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is 
caused by viruses being passed.  Any views or opinions presented are 
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the 
Barclays Group.  Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays 
Group for operational or business reasons.

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