From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-18 11:02:27
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > I've implemented similar facilities in Boost.Test. Here is how latest
(not cometted)version look like (abridged):
> > Usage look like this:
> > boost::execution_monitor ex_mon;
> > ex_mon.register_exception_translator<my_exception>( my_translator );
> You didn't show what my_exception looks like.
> > ex_mon.execute( function_to_monitor );
> > Isn't it what you are trying to do?
> "Trying?" Of course I'm doing something similar, but I'm confused by
> the question: I was the one who pointed this technique out to you.
I did not have a chance to look in detailed on the code you posted. It just
seemed that there maybe something more beyond what I was trying to do. My
question was just to clarify the difference. Sorry for confusion.
> Surely you grabbed most of your code out of Boost.Python (?)
I did not grap the code I just followed the discussion we had at the time.
> Anyway, the point of my exercise was to extract the mechanism into an
> easy-to-use general-purpose library with as little overhead as
> possible (e.g. no dynamic allocations are forced). If we still think
> there's a point in having such a general library (at least in detail),
> your particular interface choices could be implemented on top of it.
I wil need to look in more detailes. I could be not trivial. Also I couldn't
afford all the dependencies you introduced.
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk