On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Lotzi Boloni wrote:

> > > On the other hand, calling a function without catching any possible exceptions
> > > (in the CORBA way of doing things) is also plain stupid. Catching exceptions,
> > > even when it does implie a lot of work, at least gives you a chance to
> > > gracefully respond to such errors.
> > 
> > Of course one (ugly) way to do it is wait on bug reports, ask for
> > tracebacks and *then* catch the exceptions.
> > 
> > I'd bet 90% of the exceptions that actually happen would get caught after
> > a few months in beta :-)
> 
>   One of the things you can do in those exception handlers is to bring up
> a dialog box, and enable to send a mail. A funny automatic processing
> stuff would be to count the number of exceptions per function calls and
> then disable those try-s which never sent an exception in the beta
> process. Hmm...

I'm not too versed on exceptions, but you can have one super-outer
exception catch like this:

try
{
	app.exec();
}
catch () ...

If there was a way to see from where the exception is coming, this would
be enough to implement a first attempt and then refine over time. But
there isn't a way to see that, right?

 ("\''/").__..-''"`-. .         Roberto Alsina
 `9_ 9  )   `-. (    ).`-._.`)  ralsina@unl.edu.ar
 (_Y_.)' ._   ) `._`.  " -.-'   Centro de Telematica
  _..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.'           Universidad Nacional del Litoral
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.'             Santa Fe - Argentina
                                KDE Developer (MFCH)
Not mad, but bound more than a madman is (Romeo and Juliet, Act I Scene II)