Re: [boost] Re: Next revision of boost::thread & amp; OS error code.

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-16 11:27:37

From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>
> In general I agree with Bill.  The more code gets refactored and
> encapsulated, the less useful the name of the throwing function will
> be.  Take for example boost::throw_exception.  I know that one doesn't
> really count, because the exception is constructed at a higher level,
> but I hope I've made my point.

Nope, who() is not necessarily the name of the _real_ throwing function. It
is the name of the function that best describes what failed. Often, it _is_
the real throwing function; almost always the returned function name is
somewhere on the call stack; but it's not required to be.

In fact, it would be perfectly possible for who() to not be a function name
at all. Function names are merely a good way to describe what failed.