Re: asserting nothings thrown in a destructor

From:

gpderetta <gpderetta@gmail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:24:28 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID:

<2a56f3ce-c2aa-48a3-b72f-afe55f1c4b75@s14g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>

On Dec 11, 2:32 pm, "g3r...@gmail.com" <g3r...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 11, 9:10 am, Rolf Magnus <ramag...@t-online.de> wrote:

g3r...@gmail.com wrote:

i know that macros shouldn't be used in c++ unnecessarily because of
scope rules, but what if i put something like this in destructor's
where i don't know if T will throw something, as macros will also mak=

it clear to the reader what I'm trying to achieve

if i put T in an std::auto_ptr i can't assert nothing is thrown

#define ON_SOMETHING_THROWN \
::abort();
#define START_ASSERT_NOTHING_THROWN \
try{
#define END_ASSERT_NOTHING_THROWN \
} \
catch(...){ \
ON_SOMETHING_THROWN \
}

template<typename T>
class foo{
public:
foo():
ptr(new T()){
}
~foo(){
START_ASSERT_NOTHING_THROWN

delete ptr;

END_ASSERT_NOTHING_THROWN
}
private:
T* ptr;
};

That isn't necessariy altogether. If an exception is not caught anywher=

std::unexpected() is called, for which you can define your own handler.=

default, it calls std::terminate, which by default calls abort.

yeah but i can assert nothing is thrown this way?

Macros are often evil, but macros that expand to unmatched parenthesis
are, IMHO, even worse.
What's wrong with :

~foo() throw() {
// code that should not throw here
}

--
Giovanni P. Deretta