Re: [c++-pthreads] Re: thread-safety definition
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [c++-pthreads] Re: thread-safety definition



On Jan 17, 2004, at 10:38 PM, Wil Evers wrote:

Matt Austern wrote:

On Jan 16, 2004, at 7:26 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
AFAICT the discussion is about whether it makes sense to support
programs which do catch(...) without rethrowing, and if so, how.
Right now we're discussing a morality issue: "is it inherently evil to
catch(...)  without rethrowing?"
 And my position on the morality question would be that yes, it
is inherently evil, but that sometimes programs have to do evil
things.  I can think of a couple of designs that rely on being
able to catch exceptions and not rethrow them, and I'm sure you
can too.  (Mostly designs where the catch(...) is part of an
adapter layer that translates between one kind of error reporting
mechanism and another one.  The (...) will get translated into
something like "unknown error".)

Do you think that designs that rely on catch(...) without rethrow to comply with the 'destructors must not throw' principle are unreasonable?

No. I think designs like that are ugly, but sometimes an ugly solution is the only one that can work.

			--Matt