Re: future of the C++

From:

Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++.moderated

Date:

Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:16:27 CST

Message-ID:

<i13i2b$jlb$1@news.eternal-september.org>

Ian Collins wrote:

On 07/ 8/10 08:16 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

Mathias Gaunard wrote:

I personally don't understand the point of non-recoverable exceptions
at all. If they're non recoverable, it means it is something that
should *never* happen, and therefore is a bug in the program itself.
The program might as well abort and terminate directly. Trying to
clean up in the face of something that should never happen in the
first place cannot work, and might actually lead to even more errors.

Yes, you're quite right.

Being able to catch them, however, can make debugging a program easier.

Isn't a breakpoint on abort() a better alternative? I wouldn't want any
unwinding or object clean-up to occur under those conditions. Along
with the risk of more damage being done, valuable state information may
be lost.

Usually, yes, a breakpoint is better. But consider what a breakpoint is
- it's a debugger installing an exception handler! A debugger is
sometimes not available, and so it's nice to be able to build in a bit
of debugger capability into the program.

--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]