Gabriel Sechan wrote: >.. >> From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> (1) They're not accepted as universal, so "best practices" results in a >> set of macros to "portably handle exceptions". You don't use try, you >> use a MACROPREFIX_TRY, and a MACROPREFIX_END_TRY, and all that stuff... >> plus you have to keep track of nested try-catch blocks, and use custom >> throw macros, and so forth. It makes the whole exception thing so >> useless that you might as well not use it at all, which is, I suspect, >> the point. >> > > Umm, what the hell are you talking about? I have *never* seen any such > macros used in C++ code. I have never seen a macro to do try, throw, or > carch ever. And while you can do nested try/catch blocks, you don't > need to do anything special for them. I have no clue where you're > coming from here.
Maybe he's referring to early MS C++ stuff. I don't know so much about recent language versions, but I recall such macros from circa 91(?)-94. >.. > Not that I understand why anyone would *want* exceptions. Exceptions > are a language design flaw. Exceptions are in common use, no? And in more than one language, too. What would you counsel as ways to avoid existing (mis-)uses of the exception mechanism? Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
