"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> Hmm, no. The contract would have to be that if StoragePolicy
>> throws an exception, it frees the resource passed as its constructor
>> argument. There's nothing wrong with a requirement like that in
>> principle.
>
> I see. We don't need StoragePolicy to be constructed. We just need
> it to be constructed before everything else. Makes sense.
>
>> [...]
>> > It seems that the function try block is slightly more powerful,
>> > because it does not require StoragePolicy() to be no-throw.
>>
>> Yes and no.
>>
>> 1. Aren't function try blocks somewhat non-portable in practice?
>
> Are they? You mean because they aren't implemented well?
s/well/at all/ in some cases IIRC.
>> 2. Isn't it only the StoragePolicy that knows how to free the
>> resource?
>
> Hmm...technically yes. If the StoragePolicy were fully constructed,
> you could ask it to free the resource. But then you're requiring it
> to be no-throw to begin with. So it seems that they give you
> nothing, as usual. ;)
"They" meaning function-try-blocks?
The rule I have stuck in my head from the last time I considered this
was: all they give you is the ability to translate the exception into
some other exception. I never thought that was a particularly
valuable thing to do in most cases.
> Unfortunately, neither does a managed pointer in the StoragePolicy.
> Sure, it frees the resource in the presence of exceptions, but it
> also frees it in the absence of exceptions,
Huh? No way. If it were a member of the StoragePolicy, it wouldn't
be a problem.
But I'm not seriously suggesting that you do this, because it still
wouldn't be freed according to the StoragePolicy if you used,
e.g. auto_ptr.
> which is quite too often. Namely, it doesn't know when it
> *shouldn't* free the resource, because it doesn't know about
> Ownership. So now it looks like we're back to that pesky function
> try-block, and requiring StoragePolicy to be no-throw. :(
I can't agree with your conclusion. IMO the right answer is that
StoragePolicy promises to free the resource it's initialized with when
construction fails.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
