Terje Slettebų <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What I meant (though sorry I was probably too blunt about it) was that >> it's irrelevant whether you actually observed termination or not, >> unless you're intending for lexical_cast to work just on that compiler. > > That's correct, and I meant nothing else, either.
If you understood all along that the copy ctor of your exception class could cause termination when the exception was thrown, I don't understand why I went through this long twisty discussion just to have you tell me so. If I caused the twisting, I'm sorry. I didn't mean for this to get so complicated. > No, it doesn't; it stores a reference to an object describing them. My > version stored a string describing them. I just applied the same > hair-splitting reasoning that made you categorically state that my > implementation "didn't do that" (what was quoted as requested). My > implementation do it just as well as your suggestion, both stores > information describing the types. One is geared towards user-readable > information, one is geared towards program-readable information. Agree? > > I wouldn't have made this such a big issue had you not claimed the > implementation didn't do what was requested, when both that and your > suggestion implements the request. I think there's a stronger argument for type_info being a representative of the type, because among other things an implementation is allowed to have type_info::name() return the empty string for all types. However, I'm not going to press this issue any further. I was just trying to make a simple point that the copy ctor of an exception object should not throw exceptions. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
