"Pavel Chikulaev" <pavel.chikulaev@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d345s3$egm$1@sea.gmane.org... | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> wrote in message | news:d343vc$7ve$1@sea.gmane.org... | > you don't want the algorithms? | Bad worded. Since I think that should ptr_iterator should be removed, no | specialized versions of algorithms are needed. | | > I meant the name of the exceptions. | Ok, not so shorty then, more descriptable. Or shorty, but in namespace | ptr_container. ok. | > yeah, well, there is not going to many other ptr_vector<T> in boost. | What about map_config? Additional security (almost for free) won't | be bad. (I mean putting in own namespace) it sounds fine. | > the copy-constructor of std::string might throw; hence when constructing | > the bad_index exception-object, we might not get that far and the *wrong* | > error will be reported. | | Still can't get your point. std::exception uses char *, your_exception_classes | use char *, what std::strings are you talking about? std::out_of_range uses std::string. | Then derive from runtime_error, but not exception. same problem. | > I don't think the analogy is quite the same. | | That was about ptr_iterators, map::at and so on. std::map<K,T> will get at() in the next standard. -Thorsten