From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-13 15:21:17
David Abrahams wrote:
> The first example uses "error_info_value" without qualification. You
> need to test your examples.
In the examples in the documentation, only "exception" is qualified, to
differentiate between boost::exception and std::exception. The examples are
easier to read and understand without boost:: sprinkled all over.
As for testing, I tried to compile the first example, the compiler choked on
the "...." and I gave up. :)
> Finally, a design note: I don't like the fact that I need a try/catch
> block in order to adorn the currently-unwinding exception with more
> information; it's just too heavy syntactically. I realize it would
> require TLS for thread-safety, but I'd like to see an option that uses
> the destructor of a local object to do the same work.
I realize that try...catch is a heavy thing to type. I also realize that the
whole point of being exception-neutral is to not have to catch (there I go
again, circular logic), however if you use a local object's destructor to do
the work, you have to stuff the extra error_infos in that local object even
if no exception is thrown. I'm not convinced that this overhead is
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk