Boost logo

Boost :

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-24 12:02:35

>> Does anyone have any comments on this? Support or objections?
> I don't think it is cut and dry. It is a case of consistent behaviour
> versus implementation defined behaviour. In the past I've found it
> suited myself too to get rid of the catch all clause so I'd probably
> come down in the get rid of it and leave it implementation defined.
> Exception safety across threads is a point of contentious design and
> best left to the user to deal with it by specific design I think.

I think I'd come down on the other side: this isn't a minor change, it's a
complete change of semantics and we should be very careful about such a
change. With most of the compilers I use an uncaught exception thrown from
a user thread will terminate the application, which may be what you want, or
it may not: but it sure is drastic! You can always trap uncaught exceptions
yourself and call abort (or whatever) if that's what you want. The debugger
I use will also let you trap all thrown exceptions if that's what you want,
whether they all do that I don't know.

Also 2c worth,


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at