On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:53:21 -0500, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Boost libraries often define exception classes, usually derived from the >standard library exception hierarchy. Users sometimes ask for further >refinement, so the library ends up with its own hierarchy. > >For example, the Filesystem library started out with >boost::filesystem::filesystem_error, but reviewers asked for more specific >exceptions at least for the most common errors (like "file not found".) I'm surprised that the filesystem library uses exceptions for that. I used to think the consensus among experts was to use a return value, and complain about the Java library that does otherwise :-) [...] >Has anyone run into a comprehensive attack on these and similar exception >class problems? Is there a better way than each Boost developer just >hacking together individual exception classes? Could we do better with a >Boost exception class or idiom? For what my opinion is worth, I'm a little unwilling to have a boost_exception base class, for the simple reason that conceptually speaking it is not a part of the exception hierarchy. In other words the fact that, say, bad_year is defined in the boost library shouldn't affect its base type; the class should be coded the same way regardless of the library it belongs to. Anyhow, I would accept the compromise if it brings other important advantages. Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
