From: "Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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.
The wonderful thing about leaving what() implementation-defined is that it can be tightened to be well-defined for all standard exception classes without breaking any code, as any code that depends on particular what() string is already broken. :-) > Of course, typeinfo might > be another way, but that's broken for cross-platform > developments :-( typeinfo::name() isn't a good general solution, although it's a very good default. In particular, I'd expect char const * errno_exception::what() const throw(); to return f.ex. "ENOMEM" and not "errno_exception". _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
