c++支持“finally”块吗?

RAII习语是什么?

c++的RAII习语和c#的using语句有什么区别?


当前回答

I also think that RIIA is not a fully useful replacement for exception handling and having a finally. BTW, I also think RIIA is a bad name all around. I call these types of classes 'janitors' and use them a LOT. 95% of the time they are neither initializing nor acquiring resources, they are applying some change on a scoped basis, or taking something already set up and making sure it's destroyed. This being the official pattern name obsessed internet I get abused for even suggesting my name might be better.

我只是认为不合理的做法是,要求某些特殊列表的每一个复杂设置都必须编写一个类来包含它,以避免在清理过程中出现问题时需要捕获多个异常类型时的复杂性。这将导致大量的临时类,否则这些类是不必要的。

是的,对于专为管理特定资源而设计的类,或者专为处理一组类似资源而设计的泛型类,这是没问题的。但是,即使所有涉及的东西都有这样的包装器,清理的协调也可能不仅仅是简单的反序析构函数调用。

我认为c++有一个final。我的意思是,天哪,在过去的几十年里,它被粘上了这么多零碎的东西,似乎奇怪的是,人们突然对一些东西变得保守起来,比如最终,它可能非常有用,可能不像其他一些已经添加的东西那么复杂(尽管这只是我的猜测)。

其他回答

不,c++不支持'finally'块。原因是c++支持RAII:“资源获取是初始化”——对于一个真正有用的概念来说,这是一个糟糕的名字。

其思想是,对象的析构函数负责释放资源。当对象具有自动存储持续时间时,当创建对象的块退出时,对象的析构函数将被调用——即使该块在出现异常时退出。以下是Bjarne Stroustrup对这个话题的解释。

RAII的一个常见用途是锁定互斥量:

// A class with implements RAII
class lock
{
    mutex &m_;

public:
    lock(mutex &m)
      : m_(m)
    {
        m.acquire();
    }
    ~lock()
    {
        m_.release();
    }
};

// A class which uses 'mutex' and 'lock' objects
class foo
{
    mutex mutex_; // mutex for locking 'foo' object
public:
    void bar()
    {
        lock scopeLock(mutex_); // lock object.

        foobar(); // an operation which may throw an exception

        // scopeLock will be destructed even if an exception
        // occurs, which will release the mutex and allow
        // other functions to lock the object and run.
    }
};

RAII also simplifies using objects as members of other classes. When the owning class' is destructed, the resource managed by the RAII class gets released because the destructor for the RAII-managed class gets called as a result. This means that when you use RAII for all members in a class that manage resources, you can get away with using a very simple, maybe even the default, destructor for the owner class since it doesn't need to manually manage its member resource lifetimes. (Thanks to Mike B for pointing this out.)

For those familliar with C# or VB.NET, you may recognize that RAII is similar to .NET deterministic destruction using IDisposable and 'using' statements. Indeed, the two methods are very similar. The main difference is that RAII will deterministically release any type of resource -- including memory. When implementing IDisposable in .NET (even the .NET language C++/CLI), resources will be deterministically released except for memory. In .NET, memory is not deterministically released; memory is only released during garbage collection cycles.

 

†有些人认为“破坏是资源放弃”是RAII习语更准确的名称。

总之,微软Visual c++确实支持try,它在MFC应用中一直被用作捕获严重异常的方法,否则会导致崩溃。例如;

int CMyApp::Run() 
{
    __try
    {
        int i = CWinApp::Run();
        m_Exitok = MAGIC_EXIT_NO;
        return i;
    }
    __finally
    {
        if (m_Exitok != MAGIC_EXIT_NO)
            FaultHandler();
    }
}

在过去,我用它来做一些事情,比如在退出之前保存打开文件的备份。不过,某些JIT调试设置会破坏这种机制。

为什么即使是托管语言也会提供final块,尽管垃圾收集器会自动释放资源?

实际上,基于垃圾收集器的语言需要更多的“finally”。垃圾收集器不会及时销毁您的对象,因此不能依赖它正确地清理与内存无关的问题。

就动态分配数据而言,许多人认为应该使用智能指针。

然而……

RAII将异常安全的责任从对象的用户转移到设计人员

可悲的是,这是它自己的失败。旧的C编程习惯很难改掉。当您使用用C或非常C风格编写的库时,将不会使用RAII。除了重写整个API前端,这就是你必须要处理的。那么,“终于”这个词的缺失真的很伤人。

不一定,但你可以在一定程度上模仿他们,例如:

int * array = new int[10000000];
try {
  // Some code that can throw exceptions
  // ...
  throw std::exception();
  // ...
} catch (...) {
  // The finally-block (if an exception is thrown)
  delete[] array;
  // re-throw the exception.
  throw; 
}
// The finally-block (if no exception was thrown)
delete[] array;

注意,final -block本身可能在原始异常被重新抛出之前抛出一个异常,从而丢弃原始异常。这与Java final -block中的行为完全相同。同样,你不能在try&catch块中使用return。

我有一个用例,我认为它最终应该是c++ 11语言中完全可以接受的一部分,因为我认为从流的角度来看,它更容易阅读。我的用例是线程的消费者/生产者链,其中在运行结束时发送一个哨兵nullptr以关闭所有线程。

如果c++支持它,你会希望你的代码看起来像这样:

    extern Queue downstream, upstream;

    int Example()
    {
        try
        {
           while(!ExitRequested())
           {
             X* x = upstream.pop();
             if (!x) break;
             x->doSomething();
             downstream.push(x);
           } 
        }
        finally { 
            downstream.push(nullptr);
        }
    }

我认为把finally声明放在循环的开始更符合逻辑,因为它发生在循环退出之后……但这只是一厢情愿的想法,因为我们无法在c++中实现它。注意,下游队列连接到另一个线程,所以你不能在下游的析构函数中放入哨兵推(nullptr),因为此时它不能被销毁……它需要保持活动状态,直到另一个线程接收到nullptr。

下面是如何使用带有lambda的RAII类来做同样的事情:

    class Finally
    {
    public:

        Finally(std::function<void(void)> callback) : callback_(callback)
        {
        }
        ~Finally()
        {
            callback_();
        }
        std::function<void(void)> callback_;
    };

下面是你如何使用它:

    extern Queue downstream, upstream;

    int Example()
    {
        Finally atEnd([](){ 
           downstream.push(nullptr);
        });
        while(!ExitRequested())
        {
           X* x = upstream.pop();
           if (!x) break;
           x->doSomething();
           downstream.push(x);
        }
    }