c++, dealing with exceptions from constructors - c++

Question

I have a class which is loaded from an external file, so ideally I would want its constructor to load from a given path if the load fails, I will want to throw an error if the file is not found/not readable (Throwing errors from constructors is not a horrible idea, see ISO's FAQ).
There is a problem with this though, I want to handle errors myself in some controlled manner, and I want to do that immediately, so I need to put a try-catch statement around the constructor for this object ... and if I do that, the object is not declared outside the try statement, i.e.:
//in my_class.hpp
class my_class
{
...
public:
my_class(string path);//Throws file not found, or other error error
...
};
//anywhere my_class is needed
try
{
my_class my_object(string);
}
catch(/*Whatever error I am interesetd in*/)
{
//error handling
}
//Problem... now my_object doesn't exist anymore
I have tried a number of ways of getting around it, but I don't really like any of them:
Firstly, I could use a pointer to my_class instead of the class itself:
my_class* my_pointer;
try
{
my_class my_pointer = new my_class(string);
}
catch(/*Whatever error I am interesetd in*/)
{
//error handling
}
The problem is that the instance of this object doesn't always end up in the same object which created it, so deleting all pointers correctly would be easy to do wrong, and besides, I personally think it is ugly to have some objects be pointers to objects, and have most others be "regular objects".
Secondly, I could use a vector with only one element in much the same way:
std::vector<my_class> single_vector;
try
{
single_vector.push_back(my_class(string));
single_vector.shrink_to_fit();
}
catch(/*Whatever error I am interesetd in*/)
{
//error handling
}
I don't like the idea of having a lot of single-element vectors though.
Thirdly, I can create an empty faux constructor and use another loading function, i.e.
//in my_class.hpp
class my_class
{
...
public:
my_class() {}// Faux constructor which does nothing
void load(string path);//All the code in the constructor has been moved here
...
};
//anywhere my_class is needed
my_class my_object
try
{
my_object.load(path);
}
catch(/*Whatever error I am interesetd in*/)
{
//error handling
}
This works, but largely defeats the purpose of having a constructor, so I don't really like this either.
So my question is, which of these methods for constructing an object, which may throw errors in the constructor, is the best (or least bad)? and are there better ways of doing this?
Edit: Why don't you just use the object within the try-statement
Because the object may need to be created as the program is first started, and stopped much later. In the most extreme case (which I do actually need in this case also) that would essentially be:
int main()
{
try
{
//... things which might fail
//A few hundred lines of code
}
catch(/*whaveter*/)
{
}
}
I think this makes my code hard to read since the catch statement will be very far from where things actually went wrong.

Answer 1

One possibility is to wrap the construction and error handling in a function, returning the constructed object. Example :
#include <string>
class my_class {
public:
my_class(std::string path);
};
my_class make_my_object(std::string path)
{
try {
return {std::move(path)};
}
catch(...) {
// Handle however you want
}
}
int main()
{
auto my_object = make_my_object("this path doesn't exist");
}
But beware that the example is incomplete because it isn't clear what you intend to do when construction fails. The catch block has to either return something, throw or terminate.
If you could return a different instance, one with a "bad" or "default" state, you could have just initialized your instance to that state in my_class(std::string path) when it was determined the path is invalid. So in that case, the try/catch block is not needed.
If you rethrow the exception, then there is no point in catching it in the first place. In that case, the try/catch block is also not needed, unless you want to do a bit of extra work, like logging.
If you want to terminate, you can just let the exception go uncaught. Again, in that case, the try/catch block is not needed.
The real solution here is probably to not use a try/catch block at all, unless there is actually error handling you can do that shouldn't be implemented as part of my_class which isn't made apparent in the question (maybe a fallback path?).

Answer 2

and if I do that, the object is not declared outside the try statement
I have tried a number of ways of getting around it
That doesn't need to be a problem. There's not necessarily need to get around it. Simply use the object within the try statement.
If you really cannot have the try block around the entire lifetime, then this is a use case for std::optional:
std::optional<my_class> maybe_my_object;
try {
maybe_my_object.emplace(string);
} catch(...) {}
The problem is that the instance of this object doesn't always end up in the same object which created it, so deleting all pointers correctly would be easy to do wrong,
A pointer returned by new is correct to delete. In the error case, simply set the pointer to null and there would be no problem. That said, use a smart pointer instead for dynamic allocation, if you were to use this approach.
single_vector.push_back(my_class(string));
single_vector.shrink_to_fit();
Don't push and shrink when you know the number of objects that are going to be in the vector. Use reserve instead if you were to use this approach.

Answer 3

The object creation can fail because a resource is unavailable. It's not the creation which fails; it is a prerequisite which is not fulfilled.
Consequently, separate these two concerns: First obtain all resources and then, if that succeeded, create the object with these resources and use it. The object creation as such in this design cannot fail, the constructor is nothrow; it is trivial boilerplate code (copy data etc.). If, on the other hand, resource acquisition failed, object creation and object use are both skipped: Your problem with existing but unusable objects is gone.
Responding to your edit about try/catch comprising the entire program: Exceptions as error indicators are better suited for things which are done in many places at various times in a program because they guarantee error handling (by default through an abort) while separating it from the normal control flow. This is impossible to do with classic return value examination, which leaves us with a choice between unreadable or unreliable programs.
But if you have long-lived objects which are created only rarely (in your example: only at startup) you don't need exceptions. As you said, constructor exceptions guarantee that only properly initialized objects can be used. But if such an object is only created at startup this danger is low. You check for success one way or another and exit the program which cannot perform its purpose if the initial resource acquisition failed. This way the error is handled where it occurred. Even in less extreme cases (e.g. when an object is created at the beginning of a large function other than main) this may be the simpler solution.
In code, my suggestion looks like this:
struct T2;
struct myEx { myEx(const char *); };
void exit(int);
T1 *acquireResource1(); // e.g. read file
T2 *acquireResource2(); // e.g. connect to db
void log(const char *what);
class ObjT
{
public:
struct RsrcT
{
T1 *mT1;
T2 *mT2;
operator bool() { return mT1 && mT2; }
};
ObjT(const RsrcT& res) noexcept
{
// initialize from file data etc.
}
// more member functions using data from file and db
};
int main()
{
ObjT::RsrcT rsrc = { acquireResource1(), acquireResource2() };
if(!rsrc)
{
log("bummer");
exit(1);
}
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
// all resources are available. "Real" code starts here.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
ObjT obj(rsrc);
// 1000 lines of code using obj
}