Re: Exceptions, Go to Hell!
On Aug 27, 11:16 pm, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx.net> wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
On 08/28/10 09:47 AM, joe wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
[...]
A programmer is free to make his exception classes as
elaborate as he wants to. Attach a stack trace, for
example, if he wants to.
Which is what I said. But no matter how elaborate the
exception is, if the stack is munted, or memory is exhausted
or <insert bad things here> when it is thrown, it is still
worse than useless.
True, but not really relevant is this context, or is it? Here,
the focus is on exceptions that replace asserts. If your
application suffers from a corrupted stack, you are in UB land
anyway and neither asserts nor exceptions will handle that
gracefully.
Gracefully, no. (By definition, an assertion failure isn't
graceful.) But an assertion failure (an abort) will generally
provide you with more information than exceptions. Of course,
if the stack is truly corrupt, an exception will result in
something like a segment violation or an out of bounds memory
access, which will result in pretty much the same thing as an
abort.
Thus, I don't see how that says anything on the alternative of
reporting the manifestation of a bug via asserts or
exceptions.
The essential difference is that in the case of an assertion
failure, you've not executed the additional code of a stack
walkback, with the possibility of having made things worse.
--
James Kanze