Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: easyxml.cxx tweak

2006-03-20 Thread David Megginson
On 20/03/06, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd say it is known not to be a problem. We have 119 XML files with > silly MSDOS line terminators in the Aircraft/ directory alone, and > those cause no problems. It was once a problem with JSBSim's old hand-rolled, sort-of XML parser, but

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: easyxml.cxx tweak

2006-03-20 Thread Jon S. Berndt
> On 20/03/06, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'd say it is known not to be a problem. We have 119 XML files with > > silly MSDOS line terminators in the Aircraft/ directory alone, and > > those cause no problems. > > It was once a problem with JSBSim's old hand-rolled, sort-of XML

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: easyxml.cxx tweak

2006-03-21 Thread David Megginson
On 20/03/06, Phil Cazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're right. Sorry, I was looking at the version in the JSBSim cvs. > No exceptions there. If the JSBSim version simply removed the exception throws without compensating with some other kind of mechanism, then I can see how you'd run int

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: easyxml.cxx tweak

2006-03-21 Thread Frederic Bouvier
Quoting David Megginson : > On 20/03/06, Phil Cazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You're right. Sorry, I was looking at the version in the JSBSim cvs. > > No exceptions there. > > If the JSBSim version simply removed the exception throws without > compensating with some other kind of mech

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: easyxml.cxx tweak

2006-03-21 Thread Jon S. Berndt
> On 20/03/06, Phil Cazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You're right. Sorry, I was looking at the version in the > JSBSim cvs. > > No exceptions there. > > If the JSBSim version simply removed the exception throws > without compensating with some other kind of mechanism, then > I can

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: easyxml.cxx tweak

2006-03-21 Thread Jon S. Berndt
> > If the JSBSim version simply removed the exception throws without > > compensating with some other kind of mechanism, then I can see how > > you'd run into a lot of problems. I don't have a copy of the JSBSim > > code on my computer to check. > > Having a quick look at > http://cvs.sourceforge

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: easyxml.cxx tweak

2006-03-21 Thread David Megginson
On 21/03/06, Jon S. Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The exception sg_io_throws are a result of a problem in parsing. I've > replaced those in our local copy of easyxml.cxx with error message > printouts (cerr <<), thus reducing our dependence on specific external > exception classes. If these

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: easyxml.cxx tweak

2006-03-21 Thread Jon S. Berndt
> On 21/03/06, Jon S. Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The exception sg_io_throws are a result of a problem in parsing. I've > > replaced those in our local copy of easyxml.cxx with error message > > printouts (cerr <<), thus reducing our dependence on specific external > > exception classe

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: easyxml.cxx tweak

2006-03-22 Thread Jon S. Berndt
Regarding the parsing problem where tabs were present in the config file, I believe I have fixed that - I had made a stupid error in the last changes. The fix was tested with the lightning config file in JSBSim standalone (where I had been able to reproduce the error). Jon

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: easyxml.cxx tweak

2006-03-22 Thread David Megginson
On 21/03/06, Jon S. Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I could do that. But, should I abort() or exit() instead? That's up to you -- exceptions do not always represent fatal errors (on the application level), so you might want to decide case by case. All the best, David -- http://www.meggin