From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-30 15:12:42
Bronek Kozicki <brok_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
If you're interpreting my remarks (in part)
I don't agree that it's bad in general. On some platforms it's best
avoided, so in portable code it's best avoided, too.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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