From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-23 19:31:23
Hugh Wimberly wrote:
> I could be way off base here, but I assumed the question related to the use
> of try/catch blocks, which are very expensive
What is that claim based on?
The old myth saying exceptions are slower than return values, while it's
actually the opposite?
> compared to unmanaged code.
What is that supposed to mean?
C++ has no notion of managed/unmanaged code.
Even when considering the Microsoft extensions, I still don't see what
exceptions have to do with managed code. (since you compare exceptions
to "unmanaged" code that must mean you must consider those "managed")
> The divide by zero question is easy to answer, because unless one of the
> values is volatile, then it's more efficient to check the denominator before
> the division than put the division in a try/catch block.
I don't understand how not using exceptions allow better efficiency.
If you want to detect the error, you have to make a test in both cases.
What's different is the way of transmitting the error.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk