From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > David Abrahams said: > > "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>> 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. > > > > I think a rationale goes like this: > > > > suppose the platform gives you a function for converting an error code > > into an error message (realistic, I think). How much code do you have > > to write in order to take advantage of it? > > Contrasted with, "If a platform has the ability, the error is translated > into a message that's returned as part of what()." That's where I feel > uncomfortable with the reationale.
The rationale may include the possibility, in certain circumstances, to catch a single root exception with a way to discern and react to the effecive os error (without the need for string comparisons). Sted _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
