From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-01 23:50:55
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 2:34 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Do you have a use case where the
>> "function wrapper" wouldn't work, but the "exception registry" would?
> No, not now. I was asking this only because I think that it is a better
> solution to include it in the Exception library and also because you were
> proposing this for the thread_pool library.
In my mind both approaches are about the same, except that the wrapper
approach is decoupled from the exception library. It's not that I like
it better, but it can be implemented on top of the current exception
I certainly don't want to add anything to Boost Exception without
knowing that someone has a use case for that.
> Quotting you from your preceding
> post : "Your function wrapper solution is a possibility. Another possibility
> is, if the thread pool library is not third party, it can implement your
> original idea of exception registry." So, if you think that this could be a
> possibility for the thread_pool library, it should be even better for the
> exception library, because in this way, other libraries will profit of this
> commonality, isn't it?
What is "the" tread_pool library we're talking about?
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk