At 03:11 AM 1/14/2003, William E. Kempf wrote: >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.
Yes, but that assumes a different exception class for every error code, including codes on systems that we may not have thought about yet, or have not even been invented yet. So an optional system-defined code of a system-defined type seems like a good insurance policy. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
