Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-11 11:02:58

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:22:02 -0500, David Abrahams
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Well, yes, but it seemed that Peter was making a more general point
>> ("any catch that can be replaced", not just catch(...))
>...and what other catches can be replaced by RAII?

Am I missing something? If you know that the only exceptions that will
be thrown from the try block are bad_alloc or derived, isn't (broken
environments apart) catch(const bad_alloc&) the same as catch(...)?
Anyway, Peter was rather considering:

 a) whether non-C++ exceptions are mapped into C++ EH
 b) whether stack unwinding is enabled for non-C++ exceptions
 c) whether stack unwinding happens for unhandled exceptions

Personally, I don't think libraries should be concerned with b) and
c). At least they could cleanup their own things and then let the user
do whatever he wants with the rest. No?


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