Re: [boost] Re: Re: Sockets!

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-30 09:00:25

Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> Wynand Winterbach <wynand_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> I agree that the exception reason must be codified into the type
>> name. 
>> It is a bit of work to code like this, but I for one find it a lot
>> easier
>> to understand the code (provided that proper names are given to
>> exceptions).
> 
> why don't we just make *small* hierarchy of exceptions, all derived
> from "socket_error" derived from "std::runtime_error" ?

What does the user gain from this?

> I hope that
> main LWG objection was agains large number of exception classes, and
> I feel that 20 might be bit too many. Here "too many" means : it
> might be difficult 
> to define (and use correctly) them, assuming each exception class has
> different meaning.

I don't really understand what you mean.