From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-17 12:43:01
> Oops, ambiguous parse tree.
Thx for the clarification :-)
> You are right, we can't reasonably expect that. This IMO is a defect in the
> standard. I'd definitely think twice before showing an implementation
> defined string to the user; sometimes the result looks very unprofessional.
I agree that this is an issue with the standard.
> Whether the right solution is to fix what() or to introduce a separate
> function is another matter, of course.
Given that there is lots of existing practice that doesn't meet
your 'well-defined' standard, it seems that the only option is
to introduce a separate function. Of course, typeinfo might
be another way, but that's broken for cross-platform
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk