From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-26 11:16:50
From: Eljay Love-Jensen <eljay_at_[hidden]>
> Take the Standard C Library.
Yes! Take it, please! ;-)
> Create a new namespace, "boost::xtd::" for instance.
> For every function in the Standard C Library, create an analog in the
> "boost::xtd::" namespace.
> The analog function would have the same functional behavior as the StdCLib
> function, with the notable difference that any errors will generate an
> Opinions of this idea merits being implemented?
The first question to ask is whether an exception is the right
way to handle an error for each case. Often it isn't. The next
question to ask is whether there is already a better alternative
available in C++. For example, instead of strtok() et al, you
should use Boost.Tokenizer. Finally, if there isn't a better
alternative, and the functionality is needed, you must ask
whether there aren't aspects of the C function that couldn't be
made better in C++. In that case, you'd create the new function
or class to work in a C++ way.
Thus, I don't see much merit in wrapping all of the C Library
functions so they throw exceptions.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk