Re: [boost] [review] Exception - review period extended

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-15 15:05:02

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> <snip>
>> 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

     http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/166104
     http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/30965

)?

> 
> 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...

Regards,

Tobias Schwinger
- Review Manager -