C / C++ / MFC

George_George wrote:

I do not think I am always correct

CPallini wrote:

Yes, the reported original words confirm my observation: if a constructor throws and then catches itself, outside of the construction process you see nothing,

CPallini wrote:

hence Bjarne obviously refers to exceptions thrown by global object constructors AND not catched inside the constructors themselves.

George_George wrote:

We can do anything as we like to do in exception handler, like write log.

George_George wrote:

But my original understanding is, there is no way to catch exceptions from constructor of global variables -- not the limitatino of catching exceptions in main.

CPallini wrote:

you haven't control to internal details of the global object you're instancing hence

...... For example:
  int main()
  try {
  }
  catch(std::range_error) {
  }
  catch(std::bad_alloc) {
  }
  catch(...) {
  }
This will catch every exceptions, except those thrown 
by ctor or dtor of global variables.

George_George wrote:

If this were Bjarne's point, I will have no question.

George_George wrote:

But as I showed to you, there is ways to catch exception from constructor of global variable

George_George wrote:

I have read again the chapter and Bjarne only mentioned,

George_George wrote:

Anyway, how do you understand his (Bjarne) points?

Cedric Moonen wrote:

What's the point of your example ?? You throw something that is caught two lines under. Why do you need to throw an exception for such a thing ? That's just totally not adapted.

Cedric Moonen wrote:

But now, how can you inform the users of your object that something went wrong during construction of the object ? Well, in general you throw an exception out of your constructor.

George_George wrote:

In the exception handler of constructor.

// CDummyClass might throw an exception if it fails to construct<br />
void MyFunc<br />
{<br />
   try<br />
   {<br />
      CDummyClass test();<br />
      test.DoSomething();<br />
   }<br />
   catch (....)<br />
   {<br />
      // Ok CDummyClass failed to construct so we'll try something else.<br />
   }<br />
}

George_George wrote:

Agree?