From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-07 16:20:50
"Pavel Chikulaev" <pavel.chikulaev_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| > 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
| > 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 *,
| use char *, what std::strings are you talking about?
std::out_of_range uses std::string.
| Then derive from runtime_error, but not exception.
| > 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk