From: Slawomir Lisznianski (slisznianski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-26 09:27:12
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:17:41 -0400, "David Abrahams"
> Another possibility (a good one IMO) would be to allow a
> user-replaceable handler there, which could abort, log a message and
> then abort, eat the exception, etc., as desired. If the default is to
> eat the exception, you have perfect backward compatibility.
I don't think any user-replaceable handler strategy, other than through
set_terminate() or set_unexpected(), is going to work well. That's
because you will never have an option of seeing a function name in the
call stack trace of the core file where exception originated. Am I
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk