[c++-pthreads] Re: thread-safety definition

[Wil Evers]

Matt Austern wrote:

> On Jan 16, 2004, at 7:26 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
> 
>> AFAICT the discussion is about whether it makes sense to support
>> programs which do catch(...) without rethrowing, and if so, how.
>> Right now we're discussing a morality issue: "is it inherently evil to
>> catch(...)  without rethrowing?"
>  
> And my position on the morality question would be that yes, it
> is inherently evil, but that sometimes programs have to do evil
> things.  I can think of a couple of designs that rely on being
> able to catch exceptions and not rethrow them, and I'm sure you
> can too.  (Mostly designs where the catch(...) is part of an
> adapter layer that translates between one kind of error reporting
> mechanism and another one.  The (...) will get translated into
> something like "unknown error".)

Do you think that designs that rely on catch(...) without rethrow to 
comply with the 'destructors must not throw' principle are unreasonable? 
  If so, which alternative design do you suggest?

- Wil