Re: [boost] Re: Formal Review: The Spirit Parser Framework.

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.

--Joel