Re: [boost] Re: Re: Sockets!

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 
makes
 >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 
the
 >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 
what().

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.

--Beman