From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-15 15:05:02
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> 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.
Where does this quote come from? Seems I missed that message...
Oh BTW, did you notice the reviews (one posted to the first review
thread and the other one to the user's list
> 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.
So it sounds there is no name issue and as if boost::exception should
become a std::exception -- one way or the other...
- Review Manager -
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk