From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-11 12:21:09
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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?
I think if you review this thread you'll see that there's no argument.
-- 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