"William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Abrahams said:
>> "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>> People said they wanted it, and the cost is low (one int). I think
>>>> Greg is right that they wanted to attempt system-dependent recovery.
>>>
>>> Well, I can agree that the cost is low... so I won't argue too much
>>> about including it. I just want to feel comfortable with the
>>> rationale.
>>
>> I think a rationale goes like this:
>>
>> suppose the platform gives you a function for converting an error code
>> into an error message (realistic, I think). How much code do you have
>> to write in order to take advantage of it?
>
> Contrasted with, "If a platform has the ability, the error is translated
> into a message that's returned as part of what()." That's where I feel
> uncomfortable with the reationale.
Remember that it's a bad idea to carry dynamically-allocated state in
an exception object. Translating to readable strings at the throw
point is ill-advised.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
