Re: [boost] Preliminary Review Request: boost-memory

From: shiwei xu (xushiweizh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-07 00:01:38

Thank you. I'm mistaken.

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> AMDG
>
> 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
>