Boost logo

Boost :

From: Matt Hurd (matt.hurd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-27 04:58:34

>On 26/08/05, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Matt Hurd <matt.hurd_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >>On 25/08/05, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >


> 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.

Yes, a user replaceable handler seems best. Perhaps through a policy
so a no-op could be chosen but I'm not sure if the small additional
complexity of a policy is worth it just to allow the handler to be

I'd still prefer that backward compatibility was broken and that the
default was catastrophic failure as per a normal exception. Apart
from disliking the default of silent failure, I'm not sure main's
thread should be special. Main doesn't fail silently. Maybe such a
change needs a deprecation period with an notice that the behaviour
will change. The majority seem opposed to changing the default
though, I seem to be on my own.


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