Stefano Delli Ponti said: > 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).
If the exception type doesn't fold multiple errors into a single unit, there's no need for the error code in this situation. RTTI will provide the same capabilities, even if you don't want to have seperate catch clauses. William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
