David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
Alexander Nasonov writes:
FILE* files[10] = {};
BOOST_FINALLY_BEGIN( (files) ) { for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) if(files[i]) ::fclose(files[i]); } BOOST_FINALLY_END
Boost::lambda has for loops, neh?
Can someone rewrite my example using lambda and post it here?
I prefer not hiding catch(...) from a user.
Practically speaking, destructors are much better than catch(...) for finally-like operations on many platforms. Several of them have a similar problem to Windows, where catch(...) catches asynchronous exceptions.
We were talking about catch(...) inside a destructor. How can you compare which one is better if both are in use? Scott McMurray wrote:
Also, I think it would be best if your code wrapped the code in the destructor in a try block to eat all exceptions thrown.
I don't know what your plans for using a function-try-block are, but AFAICT that construct is only useful for exception translation during data member initialization. It's only to eliminate extra {} around try/catch block. If I throw away a requirement for throw-spec after BOOST_FINALLY_BEGIN, I can add these additional {} to BOOST_FINALLY_BEGIN/BOOST_FINALLY_END macros. Then function-try-block would become try-block. -- Alexander