Boost logo

Boost :

From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-06 23:10:07


shiwei xu wrote:
> Your question is very interesting. I thought it before. In fact I don't know
> a perfect solution. If the constructor of an object throws, should the
> destructor be called?
> class Foo
> {
> private:
> A m_a;
> B m_b;
> C m_c;
> public:
> Foo() {
> m_a.init();
> m_b.init();
> thow std::exception("error");
> m_c.init();
> }
> ~Foo() {
> ...
> }
> };
> Suppose we initialized m_a and m_b. m_c was uninitialized when the exception
> throws. If the destructor is called, it may cause a crash. If the destructor
> isn't called, the allocated memory of m_a and m_b will be leaked.
> I choose to call the destructor because I think that a crash is easy to be
> detected and be solved.

This is not in accord with normal C++ semantics.
It is the responsibility of the constructor to make sure that if it
fails, it cleans up any resources that it allocated.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at