🚀 go-pugleaf

> ==========Steve Clamage, 11/18/95==========

> Apart from all of that, it is unlikely to be a good idea to throw
> an exception from a destructor. It would be safer and less likely
> to leave the program in an unknown state to use some other error-
> reporting method for destructors.

I wanted to add to my previous reply to this post,
but it is not back yet.  This is even more basic in that
it is pretty much unavoidable that destructors will throw
exceptions and the language must handle that well.
A destructor is likely to need to call other stuff that
can throw exceptions even if it does not directly throw
them.  If it destructs heap objects its members point at,
then either you preclude the heap management from
throwing exceptions or you plan for the language
handling exceptions in destructors.

I don't buy the statement that some other reporting
method has got to be better.  That sounds like you
are saying we put exceptions in but we did not mean it.
Don't get cold feet.  Go ahead and finish dealing
with all of the implications of fully putting them in.

Good Day
Dick
Dick.Menninger@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]