Beman Dawes said: > At 05:15 PM 1/10/2003, William E. Kempf wrote: > > >> ... what() // from std::runtime_error. Implementation > provides > >> // a very explicit message, including who(), > path1(), // path2(), and message reported by O/S > (which is // subject to locale on some O/S's. > >> > >> int native_error() const; > >> // a return of 0 implies a library (rather than system) error > >> > >> error_code error() const; // filesystem defined error code > >> > >> const std::string & who() const; // name of func throwing > >exception > >> > >> const path & path1() const; // argument 1 to func; may be > empty() > >> const path & path2() const; // argument 2 to func; may be > empty() > >> > >> That's pretty heavyweight, but each function has important uses. > > > >This description brings a better understanding than what I had > previously, > >but doesn't fill in all the gaps. > > > >What's the purpose of a non-native error code? > > It is useful for those who want a portable, more detailed breakdown of > what caused the error. The alternative was no non-native error code, > but instead providing one exception class for each of what are now > error codes.
That's what I'm proposing. A seperate exception for each error condition. Under that scheme, I'm not sure I see any use for a code, native or not. > > For that matter, if what() > >includes a translated message for the error code, what purpose is > there > for > >the native error code? > > People said they wanted it, and the cost is low (one int). I think Greg > is right that they wanted to attempt system-dependent recovery. Well, I can agree that the cost is low... so I won't argue too much about including it. I just want to feel comfortable with the rationale. William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
