From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-22 17:25:50
Terje Slettebø <tslettebo_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> What I meant (though sorry I was probably too blunt about it) was that
>> it's irrelevant whether you actually observed termination or not,
>> unless you're intending for lexical_cast to work just on that compiler.
> That's correct, and I meant nothing else, either.
If you understood all along that the copy ctor of your exception class
could cause termination when the exception was thrown, I don't
understand why I went through this long twisty discussion just to have
you tell me so. If I caused the twisting, I'm sorry. I didn't mean
for this to get so complicated.
> No, it doesn't; it stores a reference to an object describing them. My
> version stored a string describing them. I just applied the same
> hair-splitting reasoning that made you categorically state that my
> implementation "didn't do that" (what was quoted as requested). My
> implementation do it just as well as your suggestion, both stores
> information describing the types. One is geared towards user-readable
> information, one is geared towards program-readable information. Agree?
> I wouldn't have made this such a big issue had you not claimed the
> implementation didn't do what was requested, when both that and your
> suggestion implements the request.
I think there's a stronger argument for type_info being a
representative of the type, because among other things an
implementation is allowed to have type_info::name() return the empty
string for all types.
However, I'm not going to press this issue any further.
I was just trying to make a simple point that the copy ctor of an
exception object should not throw exceptions.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk