Ross Smith wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse (bash! take THAT, dobbins), but as we've already established I am not a "heart and soul" C++ person. I'm really in essence talking about CANCEL exceptions, in C/POSIX, and trying to relate them to C++ syntax and semantics. And while I have never overlooked destructors, they simply are not always floating around on the top of my mind and the tip of my tongue. ;-)On Tuesday 13 January 2004 05:31, Dave Butenhof wrote:You may not have said so explicitly, but your repeated statements that catch-all-and-discard was almost always a bad idea certainly implied that. If you meant it to be qualified with "except in destructors", which I gather from the above is what you really meant, then I wish you'd said so instead of leaving us to get the wrong impression.While I wouldn't dispute the statement that "I don't really understand C++", I absolutely do understand objects, encapsulation, modularity, exceptions, cancellation, and resource ownership; and what you're saying seems essentially "obvious and self-evident". I never argued, or suggested, or assumed, that exceptions would propagate out of destructors.
I suspect that destructors should be implicitly "no cancel zones".Thank you. We now appear to be in agreement :-)
Well, that's good. -- /--------------------[ David.Butenhof@xxxxxx ]--------------------\ | Hewlett-Packard Company Tru64 UNIX & VMS Thread Architect | | My book: http://www.awl.com/cseng/titles/0-201-63392-2/ | \----[ http://homepage.mac.com/dbutenhof/Threads/Threads.html ]---/