On Aug 13, 2011, at 5:43 AM, Sebastian Redl wrote: > > On 10.08.2011, at 03:14, John McCall wrote: > >> On Aug 9, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote: >>> On Aug 9, 2011, at 8:24 PM, John McCall wrote: >> >>>> As far as I understand it, Sebastian introduced dependent (i.e. wrapped) >>>> exceptions in order to support capturing and rethrowing an arbitrary, >>>> potentially foreign exception via std::exception_ptr. >>> >>> In gcc, yes. And it is that design, described at a high level in >>> cxx-abi-dev, that I followed (the high level description in cxx-abi-dev, >>> not the code in gcc). >> >> I went and read through the cxx-abi-dev discussion, and I see the necessity >> of dependent exceptions now even for non-foreign exceptions. > > Good. I would hate to think that I was mistaken back then and jumped through > all these hoops when a simpler design was available. I never considered > foreign exceptions - I don't actually think my design supports capturing them > as exception_ptrs. > >> I would appreciate it if we changed the name in our implementation to >> "envelope exception" or something like that; overloading "dependent" is >> quite unfortunate. > > That sounds good. I was never really happy with my old name. > > Sebastian
Hey, would you consider doing this part? You're better qualified than me! :-) Howard _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
