From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-03 16:01:07
At 04:58 PM 10/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>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
>design when they see it. We should be striving to come up with the best
Yes. In informal discussions, the LWG has already said they would be
interested in seeing improved designs for exception classes. But my guess
is that until a design comes along that is "a lot better", they would
rather make only compatible additions to the current hierarchy. Just "a
little better" isn't enough to overcome the inertia of an entrenched
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk