From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-14 13:11:24
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Moving the catch clause to a destructor doesn't seem an improvement
>>> to me.
>> Using a catch clause to add information to a propagating exception
>> feels syntactically heavy to me, but of course others may disagree.
>> And it may also be that without language support, there's not really a
>> good way to avoid that weight. I'm just expressing an aesthetic
>> preference here.
> Won't you need to prepare all the extra information even if nothing throws?
No, you could do it lazily.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk