[boost] Re: boost::execution_monitor impl under windows

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-01 13:33:25

Alan.Griffiths_at_[hidden] wrote:
[...]
> > Raising SEH exception (or signal) is clearly a *side effect* (that
> > isn't "covered" by the C/C++ standard...
> 
> If it isn't covered by the standard then the rules in the standard do not
> cover it.

I guess it would really help you (to kinda "see the forest for the 
trees") if throw-expressions and std::raise() would be formally 
listed as side effects. Oder? ;-) The rest simply follows... as I 
said, SEH exceptions are just ought to be "fully mapped" to the 
standard C++ exceptions. 

[...]
>   o by the runtime environment (which calls "unexpected"
>     without *any* cleanup).  While the program as a whole
>     is clearly broken in this case, this breaks cleanup
>     guarantees that exist between the throw point and the
>     top of the stack.  

ISO/IEC 14882:

"If no matching handler is found in a program, the function 
 terminate() is called; whether or not the stack is unwound 
 before this call to terminate() is implementation-defined"

>                       I prefer the existing behaviour.

Ronald Reagan:

"Status quo, you know, that is Latin for ``the mess we're in.''" 

> 
> In short, I don't understand what you are trying to achieve - and whatever
> that might be you are introducing new problems for the developer.
> 
> Am I missing something blindingly obvious?

David Butenhof:

"I suspect it's one of those things that's too subtle to see until 
 you've got experience with the alternatives; and probably nobody 
 had really perceived the power of a good 2-phase exception system 
 that's used correctly. ;-)"

regards,
alexander.