On 6/16/2012 12:24 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Fri Jun 15 2012, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard-AT-ens-lyon.org> wrote:
On 15/06/2012 17:59, Dave Abrahams wrote:
If overloading were allowed to take foo, half-modify it, then fail, then that wouldn't be true anymore.
2. Do you really write code like that? Of course, what would be the point of exceptions is not to catch them? Usually you want to do something with the exception once caught; your code doesn't do that. And code where the catch block doesn't rethrow tends to be incredibly rare.
I hope this isn't too OT, but this statement, although subjective, doesn't seem true to me: "... code where the catch block doesn't rethrow tends to be incredibly rare." Is there more context to this statement, or is that intended to be a general truth? If you're talking about writing a library then it seems natural that you want the users of that library to make decisions about how to handle exceptions, but OTOH I don't think you want to terminate an application every time an exception is thrown (do you?). Since this is a Boost mailing list you probably mean that _library_ code that isn't exception neutral is incredibly rare. That seems more true to me, but I would only add 'well-written' before library. Greg