Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Sockets!

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-30 16:58:32

Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Jessie Hernandez wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The above hierarchy, I think, is the best of both worlds: you have a
>>> minimal number of exception classes covering broad types of errors.
>>
>> But _why_ is having a minimal number of exception classes a virtue?
>
> Maybe just because LWG do not like to have many exception classes, and
> we are striving to create something which could be accepted into
> future version of standard C++ library ?

Please. The LWG members aren't stupid, they are capable of recognizing good
design when they see it. We should be striving to come up with the best
design possible.

> But I can see other point. This is about how exception hierachies are
> being used in C++ standard library. Currently C++ standard has very
> few exception classes which could be reused by all classes
> (runtime_error, logic_error and family), single exception class per
> language domains (bad_cast, bad_alloc, bad_exception, bad_typeid) and
> single exception in whole IO part of the standard library
> (ios_base::failure).

The standard library isn't very consistent in its use of exceptions, and
many of its parts aren't really an example of good design. ios_base::failure
in particular is an exception that is pretty much useless.