Handle C++ exception and structured exception together

[George2]

Hello everyone,
I am learning set_se_translator, and there are some good resources
about how to translate structured exception into C++ exception, like,

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/seexception.aspx

1.

What makes me confused is, when we are talking about translate, it
means both structured exception and C++ exception may occur in a C++
program, right?

2.

But from build option, we can select either /EHa or /EHsc, means we
can only select one type of exception, either asynchronous
(structured) or synchronous (C++ exception).

(1) and (2) are conflict?
thanks in advance,
George

[anon]

George2 wrote:

Hello everyone,
I am learning set_se_translator, and there are some good resources
about how to translate structured exception into C++ exception, like,

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/seexception.aspx

LOL
this code looks like coming from a clown:

catch(CSeException *e)
{
e->ReportError(MB_OK | MB_ICONSTOP);
e->Delete();
}

Wondering what they do in Delete() method. Hope not "delete this"

BTW http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit....html#faq-17.7 is
missing that the best way is to catch const reference

[Pavel]

George2 wrote:

Hello everyone,
I am learning set_se_translator, and there are some good resources
about how to translate structured exception into C++ exception, like,

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/seexception.aspx

1.

What makes me confused is, when we are talking about translate, it
means both structured exception and C++ exception may occur in a C++
program, right?

2.

But from build option, we can select either /EHa or /EHsc, means we
can only select one type of exception, either asynchronous
(structured) or synchronous (C++ exception).

(1) and (2) are conflict?
thanks in advance,
George

My understanding is that you need to use /EHsc, because your code will
catch C++ exceptions; the code that throws structured exceptions has
already been compiled into the libraries your code uses. Did not try it
myself though.

-Pavel

[Pavel]

anon wrote:

George2 wrote:

>Hello everyone,
I am learning set_se_translator, and there are some good resources
about how to translate structured exception into C++ exception, like,

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/seexception.aspx

LOL
this code looks like coming from a clown:

catch(CSeException *e)
{
e->ReportError(MB_OK | MB_ICONSTOP);
e->Delete();
}

Wondering what they do in Delete() method. Hope not "delete this"

I thought "delete this" was not bad-bad, although certainly not ideal.
Sometimes there is no good alternative to at least indirect "delete
this" or its equivalent ... or I simply do not know one. Do you?

[anon]

Pavel wrote:

anon wrote:

>George2 wrote:

>>Hello everyone,
I am learning set_se_translator, and there are some good resources
about how to translate structured exception into C++ exception, like,

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/seexception.aspx

LOL
this code looks like coming from a clown:

catch(CSeException *e)
{
e->ReportError(MB_OK | MB_ICONSTOP);
e->Delete();
}

Wondering what they do in Delete() method. Hope not "delete this"

I thought "delete this" was not bad-bad, although certainly not ideal.
Sometimes there is no good alternative to at least indirect "delete
this" or its equivalent ... or I simply do not know one. Do you?

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...html#faq-16.15

Do you have an example where "delete this" would be good? Or at least
not bad?

[Pavel]

anon wrote:

Pavel wrote:

>anon wrote:

>>George2 wrote:
Hello everyone,

....

>>>
LOL
this code looks like coming from a clown:

catch(CSeException *e)
{
e->ReportError(MB_OK | MB_ICONSTOP);
e->Delete();
}

Wondering what they do in Delete() method. Hope not "delete this"

I thought "delete this" was not bad-bad, although certainly not ideal.
Sometimes there is no good alternative to at least indirect "delete
this" or its equivalent ... or I simply do not know one. Do you?

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...html#faq-16.15

Sure, and the synposis of the answer to this FAQ is (quoting):
"As long as you're careful, it's OK for an object to commit suicide
(delete this)."

Do you have an example where "delete this" would be good? Or at least
not bad?

virtual Delete() or destroy() function is one of the OK ways to free the
object's memory (after freeing all other resources owned by the object,
if any) when the object knows how to free the memory it occupies in most
general case. When the memory is to be freed via delete, the function
has to call delete.

The technique has its pros and contras (IMHO mostly pros) when compared
with the alternatives I know. Do you know a clearly superior alternative?

-Pavel