Terje Slettebų wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [...] > > why shouldn't std::exception use std::strings? > > See here (http://www.boost.org/more/error_handling.html).
".... Unfortunately, operating systems other than Windows also wind non-C++ "exceptions" (such as thread cancellation) into the C++ EH machinery ...." There's no such thing as 'non-C++ "exceptions"'. Brain-damaged forced unwinding aside for a moment, an implementation provided exceptions for thread exit, cancelation... AND synchronous-signals-translated- to-exceptions ARE "normal" C++ exceptions. And, BTW, it's quite reasonable to expect that they're all derived from std::exception... ".... if every exception were derived from std::exception and everyone substituted catch(std::exception&) for catch(...), the world would be a better place. ...." The world WILL be a better place when people finally realize that C++ DOES need a mandatory 2-phase exception handling and that the current C++ standard is seriously broken with respect to exceptions specs (plus a few other "less important" EH-related things). It desperately needs some fixing. http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3EC0ECAA.6520B266%40web.de (Subject: Exception handling... it's time to fix the standard) regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
