Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Terje Slettebų wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [...] >> > why shouldn't std::exception use std::strings? >> >> See here (http://www.boost.org/more/error_handling.html). > > ".... > Unfortunately, operating systems other than Windows also wind non-C++ > "exceptions" (such as thread cancellation) into the C++ EH machinery > ...." > > There's no such thing as 'non-C++ "exceptions"'.
Exceptions that have no C++ type associated with them and exceptions which are thrown by the system under conditions which the standard does not allow for (e.g. asynchronous exceptions without the presence of user-invoked undefined behavior) are what I mean by "non-C++ exceptions". > Brain-damaged forced unwinding aside for a moment, an implementation > provided exceptions for thread exit, cancelation... AND > synchronous-signals-translated- to-exceptions ARE "normal" C++ > exceptions. That really depends on the implementation. > And, BTW, it's quite reasonable to expect that they're all derived > from std::exception... Except that they're not even always C++ types (c.f. Microsoft). > ".... > if every exception were derived from std::exception and everyone > substituted catch(std::exception&) for catch(...), the world would > be a better place. > ...." > > The world WILL be a better place when people finally realize that > C++ DOES need a mandatory 2-phase exception handling and that the > current C++ standard is seriously broken with respect to exceptions > specs (plus a few other "less important" EH-related things). It > desperately needs some fixing. So quit complaining ineffectively and submit a DR with suggested wording changes. [That is a non-boost issue, BTW. If you want to discuss it, you should take it elsewhere] -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
