From: mordor.nospam@fly.srk.fer.hr   
      
   On 2012-05-19, Wil Evers  wrote:   
   >   
   > It is close()'s surprising double-duty nature that causes the   
   > problem we're discussing here.  Destructors are compiler-generated   
   > callbacks that tell us to release our resources; they were simply   
   > not designed for anything else.   
   >   
      
   In principle, I agree, but you may find examples where nontrivial work   
   is done in destructors, for example, unlocking a mutex.   
      
   So it seems that destructors are usable only for doing work that   
   cannot fail, which is, in practice, just freeing memory. (An   
   alternative is to ignore errors in destructors and hope for the best   
   -- as with close and mutex examples.)   
      
   Maybe the common wisdom of not throwing from a destructor is wrong --   
   why is everybody so afraid of terminate() being called when a custom   
   terminate handler can be installed?   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)