> Oops, ambiguous parse tree. Thx for the clarification :-) > You are right, we can't reasonably expect that. This IMO is a defect in the > standard. I'd definitely think twice before showing an implementation > defined string to the user; sometimes the result looks very unprofessional. > :-)
I agree that this is an issue with the standard. > Whether the right solution is to fix what() or to introduce a separate > function is another matter, of course. Given that there is lots of existing practice that doesn't meet your 'well-defined' standard, it seems that the only option is to introduce a separate function. Of course, typeinfo might be another way, but that's broken for cross-platform developments :-( Jeff _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
