----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Huber" <ah2003@[...].net> 
>  E. Gladyshev wrote:
>  > After thinking about your solution a bit more,
>  > I don't think that it is generic enough.
>  >
>  > Your solution
>  >
>  > try{...}
>  > catch(...)
>  > {
>  > try { throw; }
>  > catch( type1 ) { ... }
>  > }
>  >
>  > is very different from
>  >
>  > try{...}
>  > catch( type1 ) {...}
>  >
>  > One of the differences is that in the first case, the stack unwinding
>  > will
>  > be
>  > triggered for any exception. In the second case, it is not
>  > necessarily the case.
> 
>  This only applies to exceptions that will ultimately end up as unhandled
and
>  are never caught an rethrown inbetween, right? For all other exceptions it
>  should not make a difference?

Right.
So I was arguing that such a solution is not generic enough.

I think that fsm should at the very least allow you to disable catch(...)
and let unhandled exceptions go unhandled.
Is ExceptionTranslator the best place to do that?

Eugene

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost