From 1970121965063868322 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,96a8c01f7043c2d9 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-09-23 09:20:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!devnull From: francis.glassborow@ntlworld.com (Francis Glassborow) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Proposal: exception stack unwinding resumption Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:20:22 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Southfield Microcomputer SS Lines: 28 Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: <6df0c6a8.0208260746.633710cb@posting.google.com> <6df0c6a8.0209100534.619b8531@posting.google.com> <6df0c6a8.0209121133.6f081c37@posting.google.com> <23b84d65.0209161107.23bea618@posting.google.com> <6df0c6a8.0209170602.2cb54634@posting.google.com> <6df0c6a8.0209201925.6faa9e57@posting.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1032798022 29202 10.0.0.1 (23 Sep 2002 16:20:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:20:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from mulga.cs.mu.oz.au ([128.250.1.22]) by news.demon.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17tVwI-0007aO-00 for mail2news@news.news.demon.net; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:20:21 +0000 X-Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU id CAA06141; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 02:19:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu X-Reply-To: Francis Glassborow X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ X-User-Agent: Turnpike/6.01-U () X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.6 23258 g8N9DYaN023206 mailbox1.ucsd.edu) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:14133 In article , Bob Bell writes >Finally, you haven't simplified the implementation of destructors, >you've complicated it. Because now they may have to be sensitive to >whether or not throwing is "allowed." If not (if some higher-level >caller hasn't called set_unwinding_resumption(true)), the destructor >must absorb the exception and prevent its escape. So under some >circumstances this destructor reports errors, and under others it >doesn't? I don't know about you, but this would simply encourage me to >take the simpler road: destructors never throw. And I wish we could actually make that the default for dtors (even though for legacy reasons we cannot make it for other functions). Yes, I know all the objections so it will not happen. -- Francis Glassborow ACCU 64 Southfield Rd Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490 All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]