Date: 2001-10-10 18:07:28
--- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> From: <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > > In fact STLPort is trying to save you from including <string> if
> > you don't
> > > need it.
> > I don't need it. I didn't use it. That's the whole point. The
> > that the exceptions demand that you use std::string to construct
> > is simply wrong. Either one or the other cases would be
> > but what happens here is not.
> > 1) I don't need <string> to construct an exception with a const
> > char* parameter.
> > 2) <string> is included by <exception> because I do need it for
> > construction via a const char*.
> > The latter would be acceptable, though it causes extra dependency
> > overhead so the former would be preferred. This is all a
> > problem with the current definition in the standard and so
> > fully conforming and I do have to include <string> myself.
> OK, I agree so far.
> > However,
> > I contend this is also a QoI issue because STLPort didn't have to
> > take this route in their implementation even if the standard
> > it.
> This depends on the point of view. On the other side are those that
> <stdexcept> but don't construct exceptions. They really don't need
> even by the current rules, so STLPort tries to avoid the dependency.
That doesn't in any way violate my point of view though. This just
says that it's better to take option 1 above for these other folks,
which is why I said the former was preferred. So this doesn't change
the fact that it's a QoI issue, only that there's a preferred
solution for STLPort. I don't believe that solution would violate
current standard rules, either.
> Having <stdexcept> include <string> does not help anyone. You can
> include it yourself without losing anything.
It would have helped me in this case, and wouldn't have "hurt" the
other camp. It only adds compile time overhead, which though
undesirable is not an actual problem. From my point of view,
however, needing to include <string> when I don't directly use it is
> > Bottom line is that I don't use std::basic_string anywhere in the
> > code and should not have to include <string> because there's a
> > dependency on it in <exception>. Either the dependency shouldn't
> > there, or <exception> should include <string> itself.
> Unfortunately you do use std::basic_string, even if you don't spell
Only because there's a dependency in std::exception, though. That's
why I said there should either be no dependency (taken care of by the
const char* overload solution) or that <exception> should include
> In my opinion, it would be much easier to just add const char *
> overloads to the standard exception classes than to somehow fix the
> to allow such code to not be considered 'use' of std::basic_string.
I'd agree with this, and is what I've said over and over in this
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk