Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (              Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Exceptions and Destructors
Message-ID: <6590040@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 88 01:31:11 GMT
References: <352@otc.oz>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 17

In general, it seems to me your statements are true, iff one
requires that "exception handling" be able to handle any kind
of failure, at any point of time in the execution of the 
software.

In many cases, you have a better knowledge of where and when
to expect various kinds of errors to crop up, in which case
possibly one could pragmatically apply easier requirements
to one's error handling, recovery, and associated destructor
schemes.

I don't believe "exception handling" is going to magically
"fix" all the software/hardware errors that can crop up 
in a serious-sized software project.

So I believe an "exception handling" scheme that can improve
the overall reliability of the software product by a factor
of maybe 10X-100X or better would be quite acceptible.