From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-13 15:09:00
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> Moving the catch clause to a destructor doesn't seem an improvement
>> to me.
>
> Using a catch clause to add information to a propagating exception
> feels syntactically heavy to me, but of course others may disagree.
> And it may also be that without language support, there's not really a
> good way to avoid that weight. I'm just expressing an aesthetic
> preference here.
Won't you need to prepare all the extra information even if nothing throws?