Timeline for Why do many exception messages not contain useful details?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2021 at 8:40 | comment | added | Caleth | @MilesRout "destructors are called deterministically" is exactly what Basile was describing there. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 5:11 | comment | added | mrr | You don't use C++ exceptions for control flow in C++ primarily because doing so makes code unreadable and hard to understand. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 4:19 | history | edited | Basile Starynkevitch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 154 characters in body
|
| Apr 15, 2015 at 4:18 | comment | added | Basile Starynkevitch | I know that, but it is a fact that C++ exceptions are not like Ocaml, and you don't use them like you do in Ocaml. | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 22:57 | comment | added | mrr | "For example, C++ exceptions are required to destroy all the living data between throwing call frame and catching call frame, and that is expensive. Hence, programmers do no wish to use exceptions a lot." Total crap. The main strength of C++ exceptions is that destructors are called deterministically. Nobody would use them if they just jumped. | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 7:03 | history | answered | Basile Starynkevitch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |