On 2013-04-02 19:02, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Right, but what I see here is that the language uses one set of criteria
to determine whether it should catch, but it's difficult to use that
same criteria in order to process the exception. It's not easy to
switch on a class type, in fact it's downright ugly (maybe we need to
come up with a way to do that in normal code too).
That's kind of breaking the whole point of OO and virtual functions, you
should not need to know the exact type.
Yes. I won't forget to re-throw the exception. Plus, it seems that you
are saying "catch this, but if it's also that, then *really* catch it".
I think the catch is a one-shot deal, and should be the final
disposition of the exception, you should rarely have to re-throw.
Re-throwing has it's own problems too, consider this possibility:
catch(ErrnoException ex) if(ex.errno == EBADF || ex.errno == EBADPARAM)
{
// handle these specifically
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// handle all other exceptions
}
I think you would have to have nested try/catch statements to do that
without something like this.
I'm just trying to exhaust all exiting language constructs first, before
adding new ones.
I mean it's a waste of code space and template bloat. Not a waste to
create the exception.
I see.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
