Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-08 10:39:47

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

> Anyway, my feeling is that people that uses BOOST_NO_EXCEPTION would
> prefer
> if( foo() )
> BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION( std::exception, "MSG" );
> where this expands to BOOST_ASSERT( "MSG" ) when BOOST_NO_EXCEPTION
> is true.

This very much depends on foo(). In your case I suspect that foo() validates
an input argument and the outer function is something similar to

Think about in which circumstances one would use at() - a function that
"recovers gracefully" from input arguments out of range by throwing an
exception - as opposed to operator[], a function that uses BOOST_ASSERT to
check the input.

Presumably, the client that calls at() _expects_ an exception when an out of
range argument is passed, and this exception is handled somewhere; this
indicates that out of range arguments to at() are expected and this code
path forms an ordinary part of the program.

If out of range input arguments were unexpected, one would use operator[],
possibly guarded by a user-level assert.

To get back to throw_exception, I guess my point is that nothing is gained
by turning the throw into an assert, because people that wanted an assert
would use the asserting function, not the throwing function.

And of course in a situation where throw_exception is used to throw
bad_alloc, an assertion makes even less sense, because there are no "logic
errors" involved, and presenting the effects of a failed assertion to the
end user would serve little purpose; the program could do nothing to defend
itself from the out of memory situation.

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