-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
register_<exception1, exception2, ...>();
isn't that hard to implement. But that's not really the point. The point is that you can place the register_ calls in multiple translation units, and you can register_ your library's exceptions even if you don't create any threads, and you don't expose their actual types to the world.
Yes, as you point out below I was confusing registration with listing expected exceptions. In the implementation I was thinking of there really is no registration.
That's the "how" part.
Thanks, that is much clearer now.
The "whether" part is that we (arguably) need the ability to specify a list of "expected" exception base classes at thread creation time. I'm still not sure about that, since this is for all intents and purposes an exception specification. Much the same effect can be achieved by just decorating the thread function with one.
With a global register and no expected exception list, won't it be possible for changes in one part of the program to affect which exceptions are propagated into the calling thread in another part of the program? Is that good or bad? If there is an excepted exception list, do you think it makes sense to have the library automatically register the types in this list? Brock