Zitat von Vicente Botet Escriba <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr>:
because of how std::uncaught_exception() works that would fail if the macros are used inside a destructor that is called during exception unwinding:
I'm familiar with that issue, but I never imagined that would be a reasonable use case. Would you want to encourage using such code in a destructor by this design choice?
I probably wouldn't encourage modifying persistent objects in destructors, but Boost.STM is intended as an alternative to manual thread synchronization. so if you've ever locked a mutex in a destructor, you know a use case for this.
As we cannot throw an isolation_exception, we need to force the transaction to abort. Does this use case responds to the need for force_to_abort/set_rollback_only?
I don't know, as I still don't understand rollback_only. I think Bob's question was about that too. not about the difference between force_to_abort/rollback_only, but the difference between rolling back and marking for rollback.