From: Iain K. Hanson (iain.hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-04 13:48:42
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 19:32, David Abrahams wrote:
> "Iain K. Hanson" <iain.hanson_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> But is this a good design? It certainly isn't the only possible one.
> >> (Making all the code depend upon the definitions of both Network_err and
> >> File_system_err - which no doubt drags other stuff into the translation unit
> >> - isn't a design choice I'd make lightly.)
> > In certain places it may be the most natural design choice. Whether it
> > is a good idea to pay for virtual inheritance in every exception derived
> > from class exception is a separate issue. Exception handling incurs a
> > significant cost once an exception is thrown. Adding to that cost could
> > drive more users away from exception handling.
> Do you think dynamic downcasting through a layer of virtual
> inheritance is significantly more expensive than downcasting through a
> layer of regular inheritance?
I don't know as I have not benchmarked it. However, it will incur a
penalty and also has a size penalty. On some compilers it may mean
turning on RTTI which often reduces optimisation and increases general
> > Also, I'm not sure that this use case is sufficiently common to burden
> > all exceptions with.
> What's the burden?
> I'm just askin', is all.
Space and time overhead. There are still people out there who will not
use exceptions for performance reasons ( perceived or real ). Anything
we do that increases the cost will give them further excuse.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk