"Daryle Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]While writing some other code, I checked out how some of the macros in Boost.Test are implemented. The BOOST_CHECK_THROW and
BOOST_CHECK_EXCEPTION macros flag when an intentional exception was missed and when the expected exception type was caught. But what about when an exception of the _wrong_ type is thrown. Shouldn't there be a catch(...) that notes that the wrong type was caught and re-throws the error?
Any operation may throw an unexpected exception. To manage this Boost.Test runs test cases under control of the Execution Monitor. Any exception thrown from inside a test case gets caught and reported. So I believe current semantic of above tools is correct.
(I knew about this possibility, but I was wondering if I should include its counter in the initial post. I guess I should have.)
1. The unexpected exception may be intercepted before the Execution Monitor gets it.
2. The general exception catching is OK from most operations. But the context I described is specifically for exception watching. If you're watching for exceptions anyway, you should branch on all three possibilities (missed, caught, caught wrong type) and not hide one of the possibilities under general handling.
Daryle
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
