From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-30 09:52:44
Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> 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?
Yes, but exceptions do originate from non-boost code.
> 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.
There is no such consensus. catch(...) is only bad when it's not a
catch(...), or when you don't really need a catch(...).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk