"Geoff Leyland" <gley001@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote in message news:E94BA576-5B96-11D8-B48C-000A95DB9BF6@ec.auckland.ac.nz...
On 10/02/2004, at 6:54 PM, Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
I think boost should encourage best practices, not practices which work acceptably only in limited circumstances without providing substantial benefits.
Fair call.
For miscellaneous errors, you can use one the standard exception classes, such as runtime_error, using a stringstream to format the results, if you like:
stringstream s; s << "somebody made " << x << " mistakes"; throw runtime_error(s.str());
This gives you the results you want, doesn't it? Is it really that inconvenient?
Oh, well I'm alright, because I'll go on using my streamy exception where I think it's warranted.
No objection here.
Convenience is an interesting question though. To some extent (no offence to the authors of excellent libraries that I use a lot and
am
extremely grateful for) my use of boost::lambda and boost::bind amounts to avoiding the inconvenience of hand writing function objects <snip>
That's what they're for. I like convenience too. ;-)
Funny that gcc's runtime_error uses a string copy constructor that could potentially throw :-)
True, using the standard exception classes does not necessarily address all the issues discussed in the guidelines. I haven't studied the libstdc++ string class in detail, but I think it's a reference counted string whose copy constructor shouldn't throw in the circumstances we've discussed. Other libraries (Dinkumware, I think) definitely have this problem. Jonathan