Re: [boost] any interest in BOOST_FINALLY?

From: Alexander Nasonov (alnsn-boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-11 00:53:06

David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
> Alexander Nasonov writes:
> > FILE* files[10] = {};
> >
> > BOOST_FINALLY_BEGIN( (files) )
> > {
> >     for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
> >         if(files[i])
> >             ::fclose(files[i]);
> > } BOOST_FINALLY_END

> Boost::lambda has for loops, neh?

Can someone rewrite my example using lambda and post it here?

> > I prefer not hiding catch(...) from a user.
> 
> Practically speaking, destructors are much better than catch(...) for
> finally-like operations on many platforms.  Several of them have a
> similar problem to Windows, where catch(...) catches asynchronous
> exceptions.

We were talking about catch(...) inside a destructor. How can you
compare which one is better if both are in use?

Scott McMurray wrote:
> Also, I think it would be best if your code wrapped the code in the
> destructor in a try block to eat all exceptions thrown. 

> I don't know what your plans for using a function-try-block are, but
> AFAICT that construct is only useful for exception translation during
> data member initialization.
It's only to eliminate extra {} around try/catch block. If I throw away a 
requirement for throw-spec after BOOST_FINALLY_BEGIN, I can add these additional 
{} to BOOST_FINALLY_BEGIN/BOOST_FINALLY_END macros. Then function-try-block 
would become try-block.
--
Alexander