From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-12 23:31:35
> I am wordering why in the list of questions for
> reviewers there is no question about whether the name of the studied
> library corresponds to its essense, or it is too wide or biased.
The library name issue was raised in this discussion, as well as in
the preliminary discussions.
Boost Exception would be most useful if it is adopted by a wide user
base, as that would allow mid-level contexts to intercept any
exception and augment it with additional data without specific
knowledge of lower level libraries that throw exceptions, and higher
level libraries that handle them.
The class name boost::exception was chosen to represent its intended
purpose as a base class for all exception types, much like
std::exception. It has been carefully designed to be compatible with
the current semantics of std::exception; this enables a future
revision of the C++ standard to expand std::exception to include
similar data-transport functionality.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk