Boost logo

Boost :

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
> behavior,


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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at