On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 09:38:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:13:39 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On Friday, 1 June 2012 at 12:29:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 04:48:27 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't agree that OutOfMemory is critical:
>> --> make it an exception ?
>
> No. What we need is a non-throwing version of malloc that
> returns NULL. (throwing version can wrap this). If you want
> to throw an exception, then throw it there (or use enforce).
With some sugar:
auto a = nothrow new Foo; // Returns null on OOM
Then, ordinary new can be disallowed in nothrow code.
But then instead of getting a nice, clear, OutOfMemoryError,
you get a
segfault - and that's assuming that it gets dereferenced
anywhere near where
it's allocated. [...]
I agree; it would make nothrow an "advanced feature", which kind
of sucks.
-Lars
