From: Caleb Epstein (caleb.epstein_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-13 00:33:54
On 12/12/05, Christopher Kohlhoff <chris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> --- Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Caleb,
> > What is your view on the issue of error handling? Are you
> > happy the way it now stands? Would you prefer exceptions be
> > thrown? Would you prefer a "can't ignore" return error code
> > approach?
> Can I just jump in here and say that the discussion about error
> handling was originally about the asynchronous callback
> handlers, where the error is a parameter to the handler, not a
> return code.
> However, in the case of the synchronous functions the default
> behaviour is to throw the error, but this behaviour can be
> modified on a per-call basis.
Thanks for the clarification Chris.
I had forgotten to mention this in my review. The synchronous functions
offer three nice error handling options out of the box: throw_error,
ignore_error and assign_error. And the user can easily provide a custom
solution of their own. The names are spelled clearly and there can be no
doubt about what they do. I like this interface.
-- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk