From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-29 16:00:06
At 03:22 PM 10/27/2003, Jessie Hernandez wrote:
>Well, I personally prefer a "large" socket exception hierarchy. This
>it very easy to catch specific exceptions and provides better error
>messages. With the current STL file classes, you may get errors such as
>"ios_base::failbit set!" (since there is only one exception class,
>ios_base::failure). This doesn't tell me why the failure happened (does
>user have permissions to the file, etc.?) I'd rather have classes such as
>socket_base::connection_refused, etc., which have their what() methods
>overloaded to print out more specific messages.
FWIW, the LWG just looked at a similar situation for regular expressions.
The solution they prefer is for a single exception class for the library,
but adding a member function which will return a code which identifies the
specific reason for the failure. This member function is in addition to
Also FWIW, a Sockets library was again mentioned in a presentation last
night by Bjarne Stroustrup as one of the standard library additions he
would really like to see.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk