Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Fourth release, requesting preliminary review again
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-05 22:08:48

Hash: SHA1

On 06/05/2010 03:49 PM, Marius Stoica wrote:

>> [...] The only solution I see is the way I'm handling the
>> nothrow_integer type already: wrap every top-level call in a
>> try/catch construct. Unless someone can suggest some way to handle
>> stack-unwinding without exceptions, doing it manually, or
>> setjmp/longjmp, I don't see any viable way to change it.
> What about having a pointer in the contained classes back to the
> upper one ? I think you can make it be there only for the
> no-exception classes by adding it to a no-exception policy class and
> inheriting it.

I'm not sure what that would accomplish. The problem isn't that the
classes can't communicate, it's that there's no way (short of either
exceptions or setjmp/longjmp) to short-circuit the flow of execution --
if we run into a problem in function H, then we have to send an error
code back to function G, which has to check for it and send it back to
function F, and so on, all the way to the point where the code knows
what to do about it. That's a lot of redundant error-code checks.
- --
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


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