Peter Dimov said: > From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Peter Dimov said: > > [...] > >> > How would you use a call stack to generate an user friendly error >> message? >> >> I wouldn't. User friendly error messages would only be generated >> close to the throw point, where *I* have enough contextual information >> to generate an error message with out a who(). > > This translates to > > "I think that who() is useless because it isn't useful to me. I practice > a particular programming style that lets me obtain the information that > who() would supply. Therefore, I will deny others this functionality as > a matter of principle, even though it is trivial for me to tag every > throw statement. It is plain obvious that styles of programming other > than my own don't deserve any support."
That's a very harsh interpretation, and certainly not what was meant by what I said. >> The call stack info would be used to >> generate a *developer* friendly message (sent to a log, not presented >> to the end user). > > This is a common theme in this exchange. In this context, I am not > concerned with developer friendly error messages, that indicate logic > errors (bugs) in client code. I can make sure - in theory - that such an > exception is never thrown by not having bugs. It is exceptions that > occur in the course in the normal operation that I'm talking about. And those, in order to be dealt with in a useful manner, have to be handled at a point close to the throw point, in order to be able to deal with the exception in a meaningful manner. This means much more than just supplying an error message, but does indicate that I should have enough context to supply such a message. William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
