From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Peter Dimov wrote: > > > From: "David B. Held" > > > > >Peter Dimov wrote: > > > > > >>My answer is that specifying the precise semantics of what() for > > >>every documented exception type is a necessary prerequisite. > > >>(Implies that the standard needs to be fixed, too.) > > > > > >Would it be worthwhile to define a different member function > > >(possibly in a std::exception-derived boost_exception) that returns > > >the precisely specified key that you desire (rather than changing the > > >requirements for what())? > > > > What _are_ the requirements for what()? > > Well, as you were saying, that it return a unique documented value for > each exception type. Or did I not understand you correctly?
You said: "(rather than changing the requirements for what())". What are the requirements for what() that I, supposedly, want changed? _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
