Re: [boost] [review] Shmem

From: Dave Moore (jdmoore99_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-16 05:38:25

On 2/15/06, Fred Bertsch <fred.bertsch_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > > 4.  For embedded environments that cannot use exceptions, I suggest
> using
> > > boost::config to disable the throwing() behavior, and provide an
> > > "isValid/isOpen" accessor function which would allow embedded
> developers to
> > > interrogate the state of the object.  When exceptions are turned on,
> this
> > > function would always return true.
> >
> > The only problem I see to this behavior in my experience is that many
> > times you develop a class for an embedded environment without exceptions
> > (because of limitations) and you want to also test it in PC platforms or
> > reuse use that code in another project and environment that do use
> > exceptions. Since the code has not exception support (you don't program
> > with exceptions AND error returns) you want the code to continue working
> > in the new environment when the exceptions are thrown.
> >
> > That's why I would prefer overloading the constructors with an
> > additional std::nothrow parameter for no-exception environments to
> > disable exception and use is_valid() approach instead of defining a
> > macro. This code would still work in new environments when the code is
> > used somewhere else where exceptions are enabled.
> >
> > After the long debate about RAII I don't know if this solution would be
> > accepted by boost members or only compile-time configuration is
> accepted.

This would satisfy my concerns, as it eliminates the 2-phase construction
possibility, and we would simply avoid the nothrow() constructors to guard
against creating 'zombies'

Thanks,
Dave Moore