Bronek Kozicki <brok@rubikon.pl> writes:
Ken Hagan wrote:
If your code is portable, then catch (...) is the only way to deal with the fact that not everything is derived from std::exception. I see nothing wrong with it.
Shouldn't all exceptions in boost derive (directly or in most cases indirectly) from std::exception?
IIRC discussions from comp.lang.c++.moderated (about "technology stolen by Andrei Alexandrescu from Yasland, ie. yet another std::vector<> implementation"), there was consensus that catch(...) is bad thing.
If you're interpreting my remarks (in part) I don't agree that it's bad in general. On some platforms it's best avoided, so in portable code it's best avoided, too. http://tinyurl.com/4f8ql -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com