[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Custom extensions to Lua
- From: David Given <dg@...>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:02:36 +0100
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 23:29, Glenn Maynard wrote:
[...]
> (setjmp is evil, but so are C++ exceptions, at least in practice: they
> bloat binaries far more than their value, in my opinion. I tend to
> stick to old-fashioned error returns.)
I have a C++ program, Spey, which is an SMTP proxy implementing greylisting. I
wrote it specifically to be reliable, scalable, and secure. (It's very neat
and uses coroutines. <PLUG> http://spey.sf.net </PLUG>)
It uses exceptions extensively in order to communicate error states. Yes,
they're not cheap in terms of code size, but used properly they can *vastly*
simplify your logic flow. Another thing I was doing was never dynamically
allocating anything if I could possibly help it; I think I use the new
operator once in the entire program. (Although I do use STL containers quite
a lot.) Since C++ exceptions call destructors, this means that all my memory
allocation problems basically go away.
Hauling the subject bodily back on topic, one of the few issues I have with
Lua is that there's no standard for exceptions. There is no consistent 'out
of memory' exception; some parts throw a string, some a number, some return
an error code, some return an error string, etc. The other standard failure
cases are all quite similar.
I do feel strongly that the use of exceptions can very much improve a program,
and in keeping with the Lua philosophy, it would be a good idea to provide a
standardised framework that application and library writers can use. Part of
this framework should, I think, involve standard exception *names*.
Otherwise, there's no way of knowing if you've caught a standard exception or
not.
--
"Curses! Foiled by the chilled dairy treats of righteousness!" --- Earthworm
Jim (evil)
Attachment:
pgpcLLHI4W4ib.pgp
Description: PGP signature