From: Sean Middleditch <elanthis@...>
Date: 2002-02-25T23:09:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Object/Memory Management

On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 08:01, Rik Hemsley wrote:
> #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.

Again, my point.  Don't rely on complex, failable tasks in destructors.

> 
> > 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.)

I'm curious what that problem is?

> 
> Cheers,
> Rik
> 
>