From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
01d801c29268$c6496cb0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:01d801c29268$c6496cb0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Well, as you were saying, that it return a unique documented value for
each exception type. Or did I not understand you correctly?
You said: (rather than changing the requirements for what()). What are
the
requirements for what() that I, supposedly, want changed?
Ah...I see. It is that you want to increase the requirements for what,
since
there really are no requirements presently. By change, I meant
increase
(which is a change, no?).
Yes, but the change is fully backward compatible, as far as the standard is
concerned.
There are also the implicit requirements on what() that everyone seems to
take for granted, that what() produces a human readable string that
contains (some form of) useful information about the reason for the failure.
The interesting thing to note is that my proposed changes to what() actually
make it better suited for this purpose, too, something that's not
immediately obvious. ;-)
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
