30 Oct
2004
30 Oct
'04
2:52 p.m.
Bronek Kozicki wrote:
Ken Hagan wrote:
If your code is portable, then catch (...) is the only way to deal with the fact that not everything is derived from std::exception. I see nothing wrong with it.
Shouldn't all exceptions in boost derive (directly or in most cases indirectly) from std::exception?
Yes, but exceptions do originate from non-boost code.
IIRC discussions from comp.lang.c++.moderated (about "technology stolen by Andrei Alexandrescu from Yasland, ie. yet another std::vector<> implementation"), there was consensus that catch(...) is bad thing.
There is no such consensus. catch(...) is only bad when it's not a catch(...), or when you don't really need a catch(...).