Zach Laine wrote:
<snip>
It would be nice to have the actual headers linked to somewhere in the online docs.
Done. You can browse the source code, tests and everything here:
I actually meant that the online docs that you intend to submit for review would benefit from having the library's source files included as well.
OK I am confused. The source code is available and has been available for a few months now, when I did the preliminary submission, there were some discussions, changes in the design, etc. Starting this thread, with the Review Request subject line, I thought that I am submitting the library for official review. Did I miss something? What source files are you talking about?
As for the library itself, the name "exception" is fine within the context of Boost, but it's going to collide with std::exception if this is ever standardized. Is there another name for this? I have to admit, nothing better springs to mind.
Since you bring it up, please do correct me if I'm wrong but *if* this is ever standardized, it could expand the semantics of std::exception. As far as I can see, this would not break existing code because the boost::exception constructors don't allocate memory and don't throw exceptions. Besides a pointer to the internal implementation (which is the only data member of boost::exception) there is no overhead; I could not find anything in 18.6.1 that boost::exception would violate.
That's correct, but I think a likelier scenario for standardization would be to include Boost.Exception as-is, so that it a) does not affect any current standard library or user code, and b) retains its full usefulness (I'm thinking here of your rationale section "Why doesn't boost::exception derive from std::exception?"). Anyway, this isn't a major objection, just something to think about.
I guess you can add "because that way it could become std::exception" to "why doesn't boost::exception derive from std::exception".
What is the motivation for the Logging system's string conversion behavior #3? It seems that a compilation failure would be preferable in most cases, since the silent failure of #3 to convert to a string won't be noticed until the program is completely compiled and executed. I'd rather know at compile time. This should at least be an option.
<snipped> In general, the value you store in a boost::exception could be something you can't print, but can be used to get you the thing you can print; this is beyond the scope of what().
I agree with your point, but it would also be nice to have a strict mode, so that the compiler could catch all the places that the default string was going to be produced. If I decide that I want all boost::exception instances in my code to produce useful output for all their contained data (a reasonable expectation for many validation schemes), I have no way under the current design of doing so.
When you say "useful output" you do realize that the output from what() is not user-friendly, right? Displaying the information relevant to a particular error is a separate issue beyond the scope of boost::exception. The user-friendly message is composed based on the type of the exception object, and the contained values recovered by get_error_info<>. Your program has to "know" what values to expect in a particular exception type, and you're free to report missing values that are required by design.
My only option right now is to inspect the code or run the code, trying to provoke all the exceptions. These are error-prone ways of verifying that the what() output is whatw I want, obviously. So I'd like to see something like BOOST_EXCEPTION_STRICT_WHAT, that when defined causes a compile failure for behavior #3.
It seems to me that your motivation with this issue is to make the output of what() more user-friendly, and more useful. I am all for making what() more useful, but at the same time I think that such efforts must not interfere with the ability to store *any* value type in a boost::exception. Perhaps we can make the compiler issue a warning if you add to a boost::exception value type that can't be converted to string? What do you think?