From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6b1a1ed8b075945
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Allocators and exceptions
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 05:46:10 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1189601170.835400.72630@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
References: <1189323618.588340.87180@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
   <jvREi.80243$ax1.52638@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
   <1189369871.672082.162750@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
   <kv25hx961chk.5kg3us0ye06y.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1189460936.295604.143720@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
   <ixr8l1ty6phe$.stdgh66rlsrl$.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1189502377.626510.172690@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
   <utzq0kqy3.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.138.37.241
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1189601171 26531 127.0.0.1 (12 Sep 2007 12:46:11
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:46:11 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <utzq0kqy3.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070724 Red Hat/1.5.0.12-0.3.slc3
 Firefox/1.5.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=137.138.37.241;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1910
Date: 2007-09-12T05:46:10-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 12 Wrz, 14:29, Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org>
wrote:

> The rule should be:
>
>     Constructors should not propagate exceptions up; they must handle
>     all exceptions internally.

No.
What should the constructor do *after* handling the exception?
Leave the object half-baked?
Do you want to introduce additional states to the object design just
to handle the "oops I'm not initialized" case?

The only reasonable solution is probably to use custom factories
instead of built-in allocators.

But... can we prohibit the user from using the allocator for the given
type?

--
Maciej Sobczak
http://www.msobczak.com/