Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review

Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-16 17:50:10

Niall Douglas wrote:

> Bringing it back to the review of Stacktrace which this is (and not of 
> Exception, another discussion thread would suit that), I am seeing the 
> following options proposed for Stacktrace:
>
> Option 1: That Stacktrace implement a macro like 
> BOOST_STACKTRACE_THROW_EXCEPTION() which reimplements 
> BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION() but with muxed in stacktrace.
>
> Option 2: That Stacktrace optionally hook some compile time hook in 
> Boost.Exception to mux in stacktrace.
>
> Option 3: That Stacktrace optionally hook some runtime hook in 
> Boost.Exception to mux in stacktrace.

This is proving to be a distraction from the Stacktrace review and I think 
that we need to postpone this discussion for when Stacktrace is accepted.

I, for one, don't back any of those options. Stacktrace itself shouldn't 
hook anything. boost::throw_exception should provide some sort of a 
mechanism via which the user should (easily) be able to include a stack 
trace into the exceptions.

> Implied in all the above is that the exception type stacktrace mux in 
> framework as described in the current Stacktrace docs is considered bad 
> form and should be deleted?

That's not a problem as far as I'm concerned, but it would be nice if the 
Boost.Exception way is documented as well.