From: Bronek Kozicki (brok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-30 05:06:10
Ken Hagan wrote:
> If your code is portable, then catch (...) is the only way
> to deal with the fact that not everything is derived from
> std::exception. I see nothing wrong with it.
Shouldn't all exceptions in boost derive (directly or in most cases
indirectly) from std::exception?
IIRC discussions from comp.lang.c++.moderated (about "technology stolen
by Andrei Alexandrescu from Yasland, ie. yet another std::vector<>
implementation"), there was consensus that catch(...) is bad thing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk