Boost logo

Boost :

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-26 05:06:31

Jeff Garland wrote:
> Well, you're assuming that report will be called in a destructor. If
> it isn't and some sort of exception is thrown then the application
> can't handle it because you've eaten it. You could always have 2
> versions:
> void cpu_time_reporter::report_no_exceptions() throws()
> void cpu_time_reporter::report()

Or how about:

void cpu_time_reporter::report(std::nothrow_t)throw() ?

It's situations like this that we have std::nothrow for isn't it?

Just a thought.


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