From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-17 13:14:33
> 1) I made orginally made archive_exception the simplest possible, it wasn't derived
> from std::exception and and contain an enum of every exception type. It suited
> my needs and I didn't feel that std::exception added anything.
Not for you, but for clients of the library that want a reasonable exception
handler of last resort and don't want to clutter code with all sorts of
exception types it is important.
> 2) well lots of complaints, some people didn't know about catch(...) syntax
> and thought that it had to be derived from std::archive to have a catch all.
> Others thought the embedded string was important.
I know about the syntax, but I really can't do anything with in the ... clause
because I can't know anything about the exception. Thuse, it is totally
useless in practice.
> 3) I agreed with none of these things but what the hell, its easier to
> accomodate than make a big deal on this insignificant point. Its obvious
> that in retrospect I was wrong.
No you were right, I would be taking issue if you hadn't done this...
> In general, libary code should make no presumptions as to the language
> of the user. That means not embedded messages.
Yes, we need to provide locale indexed message strings. No debate on that.
Sounds like another requirement for boost::exception.
> If you want a key in to a message table, use archive_exception::exception_code
> that's what my intention was.
> In my view std::exception is a mistake and should be removed from the standard.
In my view it needs to be enhanced to support developers needs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk