Emil Dotchevski wrote:
<snip> I am wordering why in the list of questions for reviewers there is no question about whether the name of the studied library corresponds to its essense, or it is too wide or biased.
Where does this quote come from? Seems I missed that message... Oh BTW, did you notice the reviews (one posted to the first review thread and the other one to the user's list http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/166104 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/30965 )?
The library name issue was raised in this discussion, as well as in the preliminary discussions.
Boost Exception would be most useful if it is adopted by a wide user base, as that would allow mid-level contexts to intercept any exception and augment it with additional data without specific knowledge of lower level libraries that throw exceptions, and higher level libraries that handle them.
The class name boost::exception was chosen to represent its intended purpose as a base class for all exception types, much like std::exception. It has been carefully designed to be compatible with the current semantics of std::exception; this enables a future revision of the C++ standard to expand std::exception to include similar data-transport functionality.
So it sounds there is no name issue and as if boost::exception should become a std::exception -- one way or the other... Regards, Tobias Schwinger - Review Manager -