From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-13 15:21:17
David Abrahams wrote:
> The first example uses "error_info_value" without qualification. You
> need to test your examples.
In the examples in the documentation, only "exception" is qualified, to
differentiate between boost::exception and std::exception. The examples are
easier to read and understand without boost:: sprinkled all over.
As for testing, I tried to compile the first example, the compiler choked on
the "...." and I gave up. :)
> Finally, a design note: I don't like the fact that I need a try/catch
> block in order to adorn the currently-unwinding exception with more
> information; it's just too heavy syntactically. I realize it would
> require TLS for thread-safety, but I'd like to see an option that uses
> the destructor of a local object to do the same work.
I realize that try...catch is a heavy thing to type. I also realize that the
whole point of being exception-neutral is to not have to catch (there I go
again, circular logic), however if you use a local object's destructor to do
the work, you have to stuff the extra error_infos in that local object even
if no exception is thrown. I'm not convinced that this overhead is
insignificant.
Emil Dotchevski