From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-26 08:33:42
John Maddock wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, that's a good idea :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk