Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review

Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-16 14:05:26

On 16 Dec 2016 at 8:46, Robert Ramey wrote:

> This illustrates what the issue is and where we need to be moving.
> 
> For many C++ programs and libraries, the exception is a convenient way 
> to handle errors and for this reason is widely used.  Traditionally, 
> library authors have documented exceptions that they threw and let user 
> programs decide to catch and handle them.  To deal with platforms which 
> didn't provide exceptions we threw through boost::throw_exception.  So 
> far so good.  But as we make bigger and more complex programs using 
> mulitple libraries from different sources, this becomes somewhat of a 
> problem to keep track of.  And users would like to have systematic way 
> of "unifying" them.  So I'm thinking the real solution is to develop 
> customs and idioms for usage by library authors which would permit users 
> to specify the way they would like to see exceptions handled.

Isn't that the whole point of proposed Boost.Outcome? I appreciate 
the explanation was a very long and tedious document as posted here 
some weeks ago, but once my paternity leave ends I'll be back onto 
investing an hour per morning until the docs look like the feedback 
from here requested.

(and just for reference, Outcome provides an optional method of 
hooking when an errored state is created. One hook provided generates 
a stack backtrace embedded with the errored state)

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/