From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-01 11:19:09
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> > From: Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> >> Presumably then exists() and the is_x() functions would be specified
> >> in terms of status() and lstatus() results. So in effect exists()
> >> and the is_x() functions are conveniences, very useful in many but
> >> not all cases, and safe to use casually since obscure errors will
> >> cause exceptions.
> > Sounds great to me!
> I find it very odd for exists/is_* predicates to throw exceptions... and
> even odder for this to be described as "safe to use casually" when casual
> use may lead to aborting an operation when this is not desirable and the
> exception does not imply failure.
Actually, I don't agree with the exceptions. I meant to agree
with everything up to that point. Sorry for the confusion.
-- 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