From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-17 11:55:22
> > I am going to much prefer something that gives me some sort of real
> > clue about the nature of the problem instead of the cryptic message
> > "pointer conflict"...
>
> Only if you can read English. Don't forget that. :-)
True...
> FWIW, I much prefer well-defined what() strings ("boost::pointer_conflict")
> that I can use as keys into a message table over implementation-defined
> descriptive messages.
I don't I agree with this. While I have no issue with your desire
to have implementation defined descriptive messages we can't expect
all libraries (eg: non-boost) that throw std::exception to follow
this policy. Seems to me we would be better off with something
like boost::exception that provides a message_key() function
above and beyond the normal what() for this purpose. Then
libraries would have what() provide the implementation default
message for those that didn't want to create custom messages.
Jeff