Re: [boost] Re: Next revision of boost::thread amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; amp; OS error code.
From: William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Dimov said: [...] It is exceptions that occur in the course in the normal operation that I'm talking about. And those, in order to be dealt with in a useful manner, have to be handled at a point close to the throw point, in order to be able to deal with the exception in a meaningful manner. Yep, I got your point. You certainly _can_ handle exceptions close to the throw point. This doesn't mean that you _have to_ handle exceptions close to the throw point. I employ a different exception handling style, with as few try blocks as possible, that typically handle exceptions far from the throw point, a style that, at least in my experience, is legitimate and produces slightly cleaner designs. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Next revision of boost::thread amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;OS error code.
William E. Kempf wrote: [...] Recovery is hardly meaningless in this case. The recovery consisted of informing the user of his mistake, I'd say application's environmental problems [or something like that] that can't be handled/recovered from by the application... but it actually MAY try to do something attempting to recover FIRST]. and probably asking him to try again. After fixing the problem(s). And batch processing stuff will probably end up in exit( EXIT_FAILURE ) [or its equivalent with respect to normal-termination-operation-failed] at this point. That's certainly recovery, and is hardly meaningless. Yep. regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
