From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In general I agree with Bill. The more code gets refactored and > encapsulated, the less useful the name of the throwing function will > be. Take for example boost::throw_exception. I know that one doesn't > really count, because the exception is constructed at a higher level, > but I hope I've made my point.
Nope, who() is not necessarily the name of the _real_ throwing function. It is the name of the function that best describes what failed. Often, it _is_ the real throwing function; almost always the returned function name is somewhere on the call stack; but it's not required to be. In fact, it would be perfectly possible for who() to not be a function name at all. Function names are merely a good way to describe what failed. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
