<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 10.08.2011, at 03:14, John McCall wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Aug 9, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">On Aug 9, 2011, at 8:24 PM, John McCall wrote:<br></blockquote><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#540000"><br></font><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">As far as I understand it, Sebastian introduced dependent (i.e. wrapped) exceptions in order to support capturing and rethrowing an arbitrary, potentially foreign exception via std::exception_ptr.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In gcc, yes. And it is that design, described at a high level in cxx-abi-dev, that I followed (the high level description in cxx-abi-dev, not the code in gcc).<br></blockquote><br>I went and read through the cxx-abi-dev discussion, and I see the necessity of dependent exceptions now even for non-foreign exceptions.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Good. I would hate to think that I was mistaken back then and jumped through all these hoops when a simpler design was available. I never considered foreign exceptions - I don't actually think my design supports capturing them as exception_ptrs.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div> I would appreciate it if we changed the name in our implementation to "envelope exception" or something like that; overloading "dependent" is quite unfortunate.<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>That sounds good. I was never really happy with my old name.</div><div><br></div><div>Sebastian</div></body></html>