Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Fourth release, requesting preliminary review again
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-06 00:19:26
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 06/06/2010 12:05 AM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>> [...] 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.
> Can you just call a user-defined or implementation-defined error
> handling function that won't return, e.g., std::abort? [...]
Well, that would be one way to deal with the problem. ;-)
> Or do you actually, ultimately, want an error code sent back to the
> user? I'm afraid I haven't been following the context of this
> particular sub-thread...
That was the idea -- to implement nothrow_integer without using any
exceptions at all.
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk