From: Rik Hemsley <rik@...>
Date: 2002-02-25T22:01:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Object/Memory Management

#if Sean Middleditch
 
> And what happens when its destructor throws an exception, while you're
> already handling an exception, in a list of objects all needing their
> destructors called, each of which is likely to throw an additional
> exception because of a bad file permission somewhere?

C++ FAQs:

Q: Should destructors throw exceptions when they fail?
A: No.

Q: Should destructors call routines that may throw exceptions?
A: Only if the destructor catches whatever the routines might throw.

Q: Should resource deallocation primitives signal failure by throwing
   an exception?
A: No.

> I've found that the majority of applications work best in either very
> low-level, fast code (C) or a very high-level, nice OO language (like
> Ruby).  C++ is an attempt to get a mixture of the two, sacrificing here
> and there to try and get the best of both worlds.
> 
> I've found that it tends not to work that nicely.  Stick with the fast,
> portable C, or make use of a *real* OO language.  ~,^

I don't like my apps to fail. Ever. I'm still trying to write a Ruby
program that doesn't die in some circumstances due to an exception which
I couldn't catch (the situation is better in 1.7, admittedly.)

Cheers,
Rik