On 26/08/05, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote: Matt Hurd <matt.hurd@gmail.com> writes:
On 25/08/05, John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
Another possibility (a good one IMO) would be to allow a user-replaceable handler there, which could abort, log a message and then abort, eat the exception, etc., as desired. If the default is to eat the exception, you have perfect backward compatibility.
Yes, a user replaceable handler seems best. Perhaps through a policy so a no-op could be chosen but I'm not sure if the small additional complexity of a policy is worth it just to allow the handler to be elided. I'd still prefer that backward compatibility was broken and that the default was catastrophic failure as per a normal exception. Apart from disliking the default of silent failure, I'm not sure main's thread should be special. Main doesn't fail silently. Maybe such a change needs a deprecation period with an notice that the behaviour will change. The majority seem opposed to changing the default though, I seem to be on my own. matt.