David Abrahams said: > "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> 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. > > Remember that it's a bad idea to carry dynamically-allocated state in an > exception object. Translating to readable strings at the throw point is > ill-advised.
Agreed, but that's an implementation detail. IOW, the exception should carry the error code, but what purpose is there in having the interface expose this detail? BTW: The filesystem_error carries a lot of dynamically-allocated state (as in 1/2 of the member data is, at least potentially, allocated). William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
