From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-14 13:38:43
David Abrahams wrote:
> "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
> No, you could do it lazily.
I'm afraid that I need to be shown an example in order to "get it". :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk