From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-14 13:37:52
Zach Laine wrote:
> That's correct, but I think a likelier scenario for standardization
> would be to include Boost.Exception as-is, so that it a) does not
> affect any current standard library or user code, and b) retains its
> full usefulness (I'm thinking here of your rationale section "Why
> doesn't boost::exception derive from std::exception?").
It would be much more useful to add the ability to transport arbitrary data
from throw to catch to std::exception itself. I believe that this doesn't
contradict your a) or b) points.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk