From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-28 11:15:58
Roland Schwarz schrieb:
>Please correct me if I am on the wrong track.
After having read:
And the summary there:
> In summary, I believe the current behavior is:
> 1. Dangerous - hides program errors in a most
> un-exception-like manner.
I don't think so. Please explain why errors could be hidden.
> 2. Unfriendly - defeats useful debugging functionality,
> on some platforms.
I understand this, and agree.
> 3. Surprising - users don't expect libraries to inhibit
> propagation of their exceptions.
I can see this only in the light of 2) since the only target
where the exception could be propagated to,
is the debugger.
> 4. Unnecessary - the user can easily supply this
The enabling of debuggers to catch uncaught exceptions is
worth the removal of the catch all. I second that.
(Altough I suspect this is platform dependant.)
Since the catch all only is effective on windows and only
guards against memory leakage in a case where the program
is in questionable state anyways (uncaught exception), I would
restate my recommendation to remove the catch clause
I think the debuuger argument is much stronger than the
safe-guarding against memory leakage in this case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk