Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-08 16:02:24

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Keep in mind that I think that exceptions specifications are "totally brain
> damaged"; I'm just trying to reconstruct their design rationale. The idea
> is, I think, that these three functions are part of three different
> subsystems, libX, libY, libZ. Each has its own exception type, and doesn't
> know or care about the others. Or something. There is a central exception
> translator in unexpected() that maps Z to Y and Y to X, so the functions
> themselves don't need to do that.

Won't work if both libX and libY can "share" (call directly) libZ. As
for reconstructing design rationale, my take on this can be found here:
(Subject: Re: Catching access violation exceptions [OT])

The funny thing is that you can read on the same page in TC++PL that:


In some C++ development environments, for some programs, and for some
people, it might therefore be preferable not to catch exceptions from
which the program isn't designed to recover.



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