Herb Sutter在这里写过这个问题。绝对值得一读。 摘要:

"Writing exception-safe code is fundamentally about writing 'try' and 'catch' in the correct places." Discuss. Put bluntly, that statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of exception safety. Exceptions are just another form of error reporting, and we certainly know that writing error-safe code is not just about where to check return codes and handle error conditions. Actually, it turns out that exception safety is rarely about writing 'try' and 'catch' -- and the more rarely the better. Also, never forget that exception safety affects a piece of code's design; it is never just an afterthought that can be retrofitted with a few extra catch statements as if for seasoning.

Herb Sutter在这里写过这个问题。绝对值得一读。 摘要:

"Writing exception-safe code is fundamentally about writing 'try' and 'catch' in the correct places." Discuss. Put bluntly, that statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of exception safety. Exceptions are just another form of error reporting, and we certainly know that writing error-safe code is not just about where to check return codes and handle error conditions. Actually, it turns out that exception safety is rarely about writing 'try' and 'catch' -- and the more rarely the better. Also, never forget that exception safety affects a piece of code's design; it is never just an afterthought that can be retrofitted with a few extra catch statements as if for seasoning.

正如在其他回答中所述，只有在可以对异常进行某种合理的错误处理时才应该捕获异常。

例如，在生成您的问题的问题中，提问者询问忽略从整数到字符串的lexical_cast异常是否安全。这样的阵容永远不会失败。如果它失败了，说明程序中出现了严重的错误。在这种情况下，你能做些什么来恢复呢?最好的方法可能是让程序死亡，因为它处于不可信任的状态。因此，不处理异常可能是最安全的做法。

You don't need to cover every block with try-catches because a try-catch can still catch unhandled exceptions thrown in functions further down the call stack. So rather than have every function have a try-catch, you can have one at the top level logic of your application. For example, there might be a SaveDocument() top-level routine, which calls many methods which call other methods etc. These sub-methods don't need their own try-catches, because if they throw, it's still caught by SaveDocument()'s catch.

这样做很好，有三个原因:它很方便，因为只有一个地方可以报告错误:SaveDocument()捕获块。没有必要在所有子方法中重复这一点，而且这正是您想要的:在一个单一的位置为用户提供关于出错的有用诊断。

第二，每当抛出异常时，保存将被取消。对于每个尝试捕获子方法，如果抛出异常，则进入该方法的捕获块，执行离开函数，并通过SaveDocument()继续进行。如果事情已经出了问题，你可能会想就此打住。

第三，所有子方法都可以假设每次调用都成功。如果调用失败，执行将跳转到catch块，后续代码永远不会执行。这可以使您的代码更加清晰。例如，下面是错误代码:

int ret = SaveFirstSection();

if (ret == FAILED)
{
    /* some diagnostic */
    return;
}

ret = SaveSecondSection();

if (ret == FAILED)
{
    /* some diagnostic */
    return;
}

ret = SaveThirdSection();

if (ret == FAILED)
{
    /* some diagnostic */
    return;
}

下面是如何编写例外情况:

// these throw if failed, caught in SaveDocument's catch
SaveFirstSection();
SaveSecondSection();
SaveThirdSection();

现在发生了什么更加清楚了。

注意，以其他方式编写异常安全代码可能更加棘手:如果抛出异常，您不希望泄漏任何内存。确保你了解RAII、STL容器、智能指针和其他在析构函数中释放资源的对象，因为对象总是在异常之前被析构。

如果总是在可能抛出异常的方法的调用者中立即处理异常，那么异常就变得毫无用处，最好使用错误代码。

异常的全部意义在于，不需要在调用链中的每个方法中处理它们。

我同意你的问题的基本方向，即在最低级别处理尽可能多的异常。

一些现有的回答是这样的:“您不需要处理异常。别人会在上面做的。”根据我的经验，这是一个不考虑当前开发的代码段异常处理的糟糕借口，让异常处理其他人或以后的问题。

在分布式开发中，这个问题会急剧增加，在分布式开发中，您可能需要调用由同事实现的方法。然后，您必须检查嵌套的方法调用链，以找出他/她为什么向您抛出一些异常，这在嵌套最深的方法中可以更容易地处理。