[boost] Re: [ptr_container] post review comments

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-07 16:20:50

"Pavel Chikulaev" <pavel.chikulaev_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:d345s3$egm$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
| "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| news:d343vc$7ve$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
| > you don't want the algorithms?
| Bad worded. Since I think that should ptr_iterator should be removed, no
| specialized versions of algorithms are needed.
|
| > I meant the name of the exceptions.
| Ok, not so shorty then, more descriptable. Or shorty, but in namespace
| ptr_container.

ok.

| > yeah, well, there is not going to many other ptr_vector<T> in boost.
| What about map_config? Additional security (almost for free) won't
| be bad. (I mean putting in own namespace)

it sounds fine.

| > the copy-constructor of std::string might throw; hence when constructing
| > the bad_index exception-object, we might not get that far and the *wrong*
| > error will be reported.
|
| Still can't get your point. std::exception uses char *, 
your_exception_classes
| use char *, what std::strings are you talking about?

std::out_of_range uses std::string.

| Then derive from runtime_error, but not exception.

same problem.

| > I don't think the analogy is quite the same.
|
| That was about ptr_iterators, map::at and so on.

std::map<K,T> will get at() in the next standard.

-Thorsten