From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-22 15:11:52
Peter Dimov wrote:
> From: "David B. Held"
> >Peter Dimov wrote:
> >>My answer is that specifying the precise semantics of what() for
> >>every documented exception type is a necessary prerequisite.
> >>(Implies that the standard needs to be fixed, too.)
> >Would it be worthwhile to define a different member function
> >(possibly in a std::exception-derived boost_exception) that returns
> >the precisely specified key that you desire (rather than changing the
> >requirements for what())?
> What _are_ the requirements for what()?
Well, as you were saying, that it return a unique documented value for
each exception type. Or did I not understand you correctly?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk