Re: Exceptions, Go to Hell!
On Aug 26, 2:23 pm, "RB" <NoMail@NoSpam> wrote:
Goran Pusic
So, you were signaling "program bug" failure using exceptions? That's
__not__ what you use exceptions for.
( Exceptions are __not__ a means of handling bugs in code, or at least
not a general-purpose one; e.g. there's no way to "handle" UB with
exceptions, not in any general sense of the world ).
Goran.
Well wait minute, Master, if I may, I can rationalize what you
are saying to a point ( I know you and Joe and are pretty much
the same on this ) but there are times that "testers" are not
going to catch every single bug. I have a co worker in my cad
department and her husband is a programmer for medical
software. I have heard that projects go out the door in some
scenarios (due to various deadline, economic or otherwise
pressures) and they sometimes know there are bound to be some
bugs still in the code. (yea that sounds scary I know for
medical, but that's life on planet earth) Wouldn't it be
prudent to have exception frames to at least cover a crash
report so it could be rectified down the road ?
Or did I miss your context all together again ?
An assertion failure will, or should, generate all of the
necessary information for debugging. That's why systems provide
different means of terminating a program. When you find a bug
in the code, however, you should terminate the program as
quickly as possible, doing as little extra work as possible.
Partially, in fact, to ensure that the information about the
crash does correspond to the actual context where the crash
occured. In the case of critical systems, to get out of the way
so the backups can take over. And in all cases, because if the
program is corrupt, who knows what it will do when unwinding the
stack.
--
James Kanze