Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-22 16:29:54

From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:01d801c29268$c6496cb0$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> > From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
> > >[...]
> > > 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?
> Ah...I see. It is that you want to increase the requirements for what,
> since
> there really are no requirements presently. By "change", I meant
> (which is a change, no?).

Yes, but the change is fully backward compatible, as far as the standard is

There are also the implicit requirements on what() that everyone seems to
take for granted, that what() produces a "human readable" string that
contains (some form of) useful information about the reason for the failure.
The interesting thing to note is that my proposed changes to what() actually
make it better suited for this purpose, too, something that's not
immediately obvious. ;-)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at