Oleg Abrosimov wrote:
Thank you for your involvement in this topic. I'm very interested in pushing it to a complete solution one day.
one further improvement I see is to define simple macros to eliminate some details from client code. something like this would be appropriate:
try { throw std::logic_error("testing"); } BOOST_CATCH(my_exception_handler());
I'd changed BOOST_CATCH to something less generic.
try { throw std::logic_error("testing"); } BOOST_CATCH_EX(exceptions, my_exception_handler());
Well, if it's macro, why not just generate handle-seq (a list of catch clauses) rather then catch(...) { handle(); throw; } ? For example: try { throw std::logic_error("testing"); } BOOST_CATCH_PP_SEQ((ex1)(ex2)(ex3), my_exception_handler()); You could even pass mpl sequence to a macro if you know a size of the sequence: try { throw std::logic_error("testing"); } BOOST_CATCH_MPL_SEQ(3, mpl::vector<ex1,ex2,ex3>, func); This could be expanded to try { throw std::logic_error("testing"); } catch(mpl::at<mpl::vector<ex1,ex2,ex3>,0>::type const& ex) { BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(( 3 == mpl::size<mpl::vector<ex1,ex2,ex3> >::type::value)); func(ex); } catch(mpl::at<mpl::vector<ex1,ex2,ex3>,1>::type const& ex) { func(ex); } catch(mpl::at<mpl::vector<ex1,ex2,ex3>,2>::type const& ex) { func(ex); } -- Alexander Nasonov