From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-04 13:45:55
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> If you like, the catch(...) block can be replaced with an
>> automatic object's destructor, but that changes nothing as far as
>> standard C++ is concerned.
> Sure it does change something. It wont "necessarily" trigger
> unwinding for unexpected exceptions.
Yes, you're right. I spoke (typed) too fast. On the other hand (and
I know you know this; I'm just filling in the details) if you
eventually catch those exceptions you're going to get unwinding, and
if you never catch those exceptions you're going to abort().
> And pretending that as far the standard/portable C++ is concerned
> they're nonexistent won't really help you to deal with them (given
> that they can be thrown by the ordinal C++ throw-expressions, not
> only "SEH" things).
What's an "ordinal C++ throw-expression"? Do you mean "ordinary?"
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk