From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-17 19:50:28
At 04:59 PM 9/17/2002, Peter Dimov wrote:
>Part of the problem is that we are writing both an interface and an
>implementation. It would be unwise to couple the interface to the
>implementation. We can't adopt 126.96.36.199's wording, though, as it says
>functions may throw implementation-defined exceptions unless otherwise
>specified. "Implementation defined" means that we must document the exact
>exception types since we are the implementors!
>I think that we should consider imposing a boost-wide "Chapter 17" saying
>that functions may throw exceptions derived from standard exception
>unless otherwise specified.
Good idea! If a library didn't want to conform with the Boost "Chapter
17", it could always exempt itself.
Who wants to volunteer to draft some wording?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk