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
> 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk