From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: "Stefano Delli Ponti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > That's a good idea. So would users prefer new exception types here, > > > > or should I use the std:: exceptions? > > > > > > IMO, it's always safer to use an exception type which provides > > > more-specific information. > > > > Agreed. And we should keep coherence with the filesystem library. > > I'm not sure there's any coherence to keep here. Do you have specific concerns/thoughts here?
I was thinking about keeping similar design patterns between these two libraries. (because they are conceptually similar as they both give a portable view of operating system functionalities). So if we use domain specific exception in the filesystem library, the thread library should follow the same pattern too. The same for the issue of conditional compilation. BTW I prefer having the same set of methods, some of them returning default values for platform without the support for the underline concept. Sometimes this could not be possible. ACE for instance uses a different approach. Sted _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost