[boost] Re: BOOST_TRY like macros: time to add them?

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