> 1) I made orginally made archive_exception the simplest possible, it wasn't derived > from std::exception and and contain an enum of every exception type. It suited > my needs and I didn't feel that std::exception added anything.
Not for you, but for clients of the library that want a reasonable exception handler of last resort and don't want to clutter code with all sorts of exception types it is important. > 2) well lots of complaints, some people didn't know about catch(...) syntax > and thought that it had to be derived from std::archive to have a catch all. > Others thought the embedded string was important. I know about the syntax, but I really can't do anything with in the ... clause because I can't know anything about the exception. Thuse, it is totally useless in practice. > 3) I agreed with none of these things but what the hell, its easier to > accomodate than make a big deal on this insignificant point. Its obvious > that in retrospect I was wrong. No you were right, I would be taking issue if you hadn't done this... > In general, libary code should make no presumptions as to the language > of the user. That means not embedded messages. Yes, we need to provide locale indexed message strings. No debate on that. Sounds like another requirement for boost::exception. > If you want a key in to a message table, use archive_exception::exception_code > that's what my intention was. > > In my view std::exception is a mistake and should be removed from the standard. In my view it needs to be enhanced to support developers needs. Jeff _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
