From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-14 15:10:58
I agree with Ted that we should try to clearly determine what we want and
what we don't.
These are my requirements in order of priority:
1) I need to access the context information on the point of the exception
from the point of the handler.
2) I need to be able to hide the recorded and collected information for
3) I need to see the as much as possible of the execution path that led to
the point of exception.
4) I want to do this as automatically as possible.
5) I'd like to be able to select which exceptions do I want to track and on
which parts of the application.
6) I'd like to be able to customize the information recorded, for example, I
might need to see the expression that violated an assertion.
As you can see, in my case, non-intrusivness is almost the least of the
Therefore, if it is possible to provide a non-intrusive solution, all the
better, but I for one would use an intrusive solution if it fits the prior
The question is: how does Ted's and Steve's schemes fit these requirements?
BTW: Ted, why don't you add to the site some examples so we can see how does
it look like when used.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk