Sorry for the late reply, have been fairly busy as of late.

I'm going to have to _strongly_  disagree with the tide of this discussion.

On Wednesday 22 August 2007 03:25, Anders Olofsson wrote:
> Didn't know about that one but after some googling I must say that
> std::unexpected sounds perfect to use. If we are just gonna catch the
> critical exceptions in one place anyway it must be better to use it
> instead of adding it to throw clause on all functions which will also
> allow any non-critical exceptions which we might not want to allow
> everywhere.

Yes, it sounds perfect, but when you try it out you will see that it is more 
of a deterrent than anything else. std::unexpected does not return a value, 
which means that there are only 2 things it can do:

1) Rethrow an exception that just happens to be in the specifier of the 
original function.

2) Terminate the program.

#1 relies on luck, and #2 is not much of a solution either.

> Yes, if you're gonna have that kind of error handling for every call,
> we'll have 10 times the size of the code just for all those catch
> blocks. Better to have it in one place and make that as good handling as
> possible.

Why have it only one place? Why not have it in the appropriate places: The 
boundaries of the daemon. Even without an exception specification, the 
document should provide the details of what exceptions to expect. Other 
exceptions, should indicate a fatal error condition. i.e., no memory left, 
corrupted memory, etc.

Jon

-- 
________________________________________________________
Jon Keating                ICQ: 16325723
[EMAIL PROTECTED]               MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.licq.org        GPG: 2290A71F
http://www.thejon.org      HOME: Minamiashigara, Japan

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Licq 
Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/licq-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to