Re:fork() can fail
by mcguire on Friday August 22, 2014 @12:12PM
(#8212705)
"It is idiomatic C++ that a destructor should not throw;...which is practically guaranteed to be exception-free..."
"Should not", "practically". Your confidence is overwhelming. :-)
Exception safety in C++ may not be quite as much of a black art as it once was (say, before std::unique_ptr), but it is still something the programmer has to do, actively.
"If releasing a resource cannot fail, destructors (and finally clauses in languages lacking RAII-style resource management) cannot fail."
Yupper.
I'm probably unqualified to have an opinion on this, but I believe that the entire hatred for checked exceptions in Java comes from that general piece of idiocy and specifically from JDBC's urge to possibly throw a SQLException from close(). (Just what the hell is anyone supposed to do with that?)
"Should not", "practically". Your confidence is overwhelming. :-)
Exception safety in C++ may not be quite as much of a black art as it once was (say, before std::unique_ptr), but it is still something the programmer has to do, actively.
"If releasing a resource cannot fail, destructors (and finally clauses in languages lacking RAII-style resource management) cannot fail."
Yupper.
I'm probably unqualified to have an opinion on this, but I believe that the entire hatred for checked exceptions in Java comes from that general piece of idiocy and specifically from JDBC's urge to possibly throw a SQLException from close(). (Just what the hell is anyone supposed to do with that?)