Re: [boost] Re: [prereview request][fsm]

From: E. Gladyshev (eegg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-28 10:42:33

--- Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> From: "E. Gladyshev" <eegg_at_[hidden]>

> > try{...}
> > catch(...)
> > {
> > try { throw; }
> > catch( type1 ) { ... }
> > }
> >
> > is very different from
> >
> > try{...}
> > catch( type1 ) {...}

[...]

> IOW, stack unwinding will occur for
> both forms, it's just a question as to where the handler will be
> found.

15.5.1/2
    Note: in the situation where
    no matching handler is found, it is implementation-defined whether  or
    not  the  stack is unwound before terminate() is called.  In all other
    situations, the stack shall  not  be  unwound  before  terminate()  is
    called

Your claim that the stack unwinding will occur in both cases
is based on an implementation-defined behavior. In fact,
all implementations that I know about allows you disable
the stack unwinding for unhandled exceptions.
So it is not strictly portable nor generic.
BTW: for the same matter, the famous RAII idiom isn't a portable idiom
either.

Best,
Eugene