From: Stefano Delli Ponti (stefano.delliponti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-13 14:50:39
From: "William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]>
> David Abrahams said:
> > "William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> 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.
The rationale may include the possibility, in certain circumstances, to
catch a single root exception with a way to discern and react to the
effecive os error (without the need for string comparisons).
Sted