Boost logo

Boost :

From: Matt Hurd (matt.hurd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-24 16:20:39

>On 25/08/05, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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,

After thinking about it some more, I'd still much rather see a
screaming application halt than the false sense of security suggested
by silent failure. Yes, it is a big change, and needs more comment.
As you suggest, you may catch anything in your own handler. I worry
that silent collection of exceptions will allow too many subtle errors
to slip through, especially in the land of concurrency. It has
happenned to me that I've let errors slip through in pooled workers
where I didn't notice rare failures and the loss of a single worker
thread. A screaming halt would have woken me up from my lazy

substantially < $0.02


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