From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-10 12:01:13
"Brock Peabody" <brock.peabody_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
>> On Behalf Of David Abrahams
>> There are better ways. Boost.Python uses a dynamic registration
> Do you think that this technique could be factored out to solve the problem
> with threads?
Sure; it would be easy.
> Another problem I've had to deal with is propagating
> exceptions through windows message handlers.
I'm not sure what the issues there are.
>> Compile-time enumeration of the exceptions is overkill and not
>> sufficiently flexible.
> If anything I'd say compile-time enumerations is underkill. Typically I'd
> only be interested in one or two types of exceptions and something like
> run_and_throw<my_lib::socket_error, std::exception>(f);
> Or maybe something like lambda::try_catch seems much simpler than anything
> involving dynamic registration. On the other hand, I agree that it's not as
> flexible. Are you referring to the problem with splicing in
No, I'm referring to the great deal of compile-time machinery needed
to generate a structure which can ultimately be done nearly as
efficiently at runtime.
Generally if you have a bunch of interacting libraries it makes sense
for each one to be able to register its exception
serializers/deserializers/translators or whatever. Why should the
thread invoker have to enumerate the possibilities each time?
-- 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