Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cimshop!davidm
From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Exception handling
Message-ID: <CIMSHOP!DAVIDM.90Oct5100642@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 5 Oct 90 17:06:42 GMT
References: <958@zinn.MV.COM>
Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP
Distribution: comp
Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California.
Lines: 60
In-reply-to: mjv@objects.mv.com's message of 3 Oct 90 15:43:09 GMT

In article <958@zinn.MV.COM> mjv@objects.mv.com (Michael J. Vilot) writes:

   [I] asked for an example of exception handling with constructor
   failures:

     int f() throw(X);
     int g() throw(Y);

     class A {
       int a_part;
     public:
       A() { a_part = f(); }
       ...
     };

     class B : public A {
       int b_part;
     public:
       B() /* A() invoked */ { b_part = g(); }
       ...
     };

     main()
     {
       try {
	 B b;
       }
       catch(X) {
	 // we get here if f() failed while building b.a_part
	 // b.b_part not attempted
       }
       catch(Y) {
	 // we get here if g() failed while building b.b_part
	 // note that if `a_part' had been of a class with a 
	 // destructor, then that destructor would have been executed
       }
     }

Would it be valid to add a call to another function (say myf()) at the end of
main() where its defined as below?

	int myf() {
	    try {
		B b;
	    }
	    catch(X) {
		// something different than previous catch(X)
	    }
	    catch(Y) {
		// something different than previous catch(Y)
	    }
	}

Point is, is it valid to reset how exceptions are processed?
--
====================================================================
David Masterson					Consilium, Inc.
uunet!cimshop!davidm				Mtn. View, CA  94043
====================================================================
"If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"