From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-17 11:55:22
> > I am going to much prefer something that gives me some sort of real
> > clue about the nature of the problem instead of the cryptic message
> > "pointer conflict"...
> Only if you can read English. Don't forget that. :-)
> FWIW, I much prefer well-defined what() strings ("boost::pointer_conflict")
> that I can use as keys into a message table over implementation-defined
> descriptive messages.
I don't I agree with this. While I have no issue with your desire
to have implementation defined descriptive messages we can't expect
all libraries (eg: non-boost) that throw std::exception to follow
this policy. Seems to me we would be better off with something
like boost::exception that provides a message_key() function
above and beyond the normal what() for this purpose. Then
libraries would have what() provide the implementation default
message for those that didn't want to create custom messages.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk