Re: [boost] Re: Do we need a boost_exception class or idiom?

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-22 15:50:20

From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
> 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?

You said: "(rather than changing the requirements for what())". What are the
requirements for what() that I, supposedly, want changed?