From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-14 21:04:28
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > From: "Joel de Guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]>
> > > From: "Carl Daniel" <cpdaniel_at_[hidden]>
> > >
> > > > More nits:
> > > >
> > > > Exception classes thrown by Spirit (parser_error<>,
> > illegal_backtracking)
> > > > don't derive from std::exception - shouldn't they?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure. Should it? What will be the benefits in doing so?
> > > The truth is, I'm not quite happy with the standard C++ exceptions.
> > > For one, it's hard coded the what() to be a string.
> > Yes, they should, allowing a single catch handler to catch them. Yes, this
> > applies even in cases where the exceptions are "not supposed to" break
> > outside a limited context.
> One reason this might be a good idea is just to avoid quirks of many
> platforms/implementations which fall outside the C++ standard, such as
> entanglements with thread cancellation and OS interrupts.
Hmmm... Looking at it more closely. I think you have a point.
This makes sense. The added safety far outweighs the slight overhead.
Agreed. Consider this done.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk