From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-17 13:14:33
> 1) I made orginally made archive_exception the simplest possible, it wasn't derived
> from std::exception and and contain an enum of every exception type. It suited
> my needs and I didn't feel that std::exception added anything.
Not for you, but for clients of the library that want a reasonable exception
handler of last resort and don't want to clutter code with all sorts of
exception types it is important.
> 2) well lots of complaints, some people didn't know about catch(...) syntax
> and thought that it had to be derived from std::archive to have a catch all.
> Others thought the embedded string was important.
I know about the syntax, but I really can't do anything with in the ... clause
because I can't know anything about the exception. Thuse, it is totally
useless in practice.
> 3) I agreed with none of these things but what the hell, its easier to
> accomodate than make a big deal on this insignificant point. Its obvious
> that in retrospect I was wrong.
No you were right, I would be taking issue if you hadn't done this...
> In general, libary code should make no presumptions as to the language
> of the user. That means not embedded messages.
Yes, we need to provide locale indexed message strings. No debate on that.
Sounds like another requirement for boost::exception.
> If you want a key in to a message table, use archive_exception::exception_code
> that's what my intention was.
>
> In my view std::exception is a mistake and should be removed from the standard.
In my view it needs to be enhanced to support developers needs.
Jeff