This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA] let record_resume fail immediately on error

> Why "do_record_message" cannot be a caller?
> It be a caller in a long time.
> I call "record_message".  You don't like it.
> I put it to "do_record_message".  You don't like it too.

It did not seem to me that the feedback was on the function name,
but rather on the interface of the function.

> I don't like use TRY_CATCH or catch_errors directly.

I confess that I don't like catch_errors, because of the need to
artificially create a container type that contains all the function
parameters. But TRY_CATCH, on the other hand, solves that problem.
What is it that you don't like about TRY_CATCH.  As far as I can tell,
the syntax is very close to C++, no?

In any case, if you really want to have either possibilities
(record_message with or without exception protection), how about
two functions, named: record_message and safe_record_message.
The latter is just a TRY_CATCH wrapper around the former.
Perhaps that could be an acceptable compromise...


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]