Re: [boost] Re: Re: Sockets!

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-30 15:43:39

At 07:03 AM 10/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
 >Beman Dawes wrote:
 >> 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().
 >
 >FWIW, following that LWG precedent in all cases is dead wrong. ;-)

Yes. Understood. You have to look at the specific case to see which is 
best.  If there is much conceptual separation between the causes of error, 
a hierarchy would be better.

--Beman