On 7/4/06, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@hotmail.com> wrote:
- I don't like the word failed as in 'throw failed<my_error>' it seems strange to throw a "failed error", that's the way I read it anyway. I can't come up with a better one right now though.
English is not native to me, but the way I read throw failed<read_error>() is that the function (that throws) failed due to a read_error. That was my intention anyway. :)
failed<read> is quite logical, it's just the failed<read_error> that's confusing. Of course, read is a bad name for a tag. Also, as soon as you're throwing, *something* failed, so saying that again doesn't seen to necessary to me. It's already being said with the throw and the _error suffix, so the failed name seems like overkill to me. What about something along the lines of throw after<read_error>(); or throw because_of<read_error>();, if you want the readability? Or perhaps throw annotated<read_error>();? Disclaimer: I haven't really been following what the template is supposed to do, so I might be way off. I'm just commenting on the readability point. ~ Scott McMurray