Re: Strongly checked exceptions: what we can learn from java experiences

From:

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Kr=FCgler?= <daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++.moderated

Date:

Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:30:29 CST

Message-ID:

<isadlu$mio$1@dont-email.me>

Am 03.06.2011 02:28, schrieb Brendan Miller:

[..]

Yeah, I've implemented that in Linux. However, it would be much better
if std::exception provided a consistent interface for getting a stack
trace. Right now, I can only get stack traces on exceptions I throw
myself, and not exceptions thrown from libraries.

It would be enough for std:exception to have a member function:
std::string trace() const;

where the return value would be implementation defined, and even could
be empty if the implementation did not support stack traces. Similar to
how what() is implementation defined.

Why don't you write a proposal that suggests such an extension? Without
any proposal, nothing will happen. Within the proposal, you have to
specify semantics of what you are suggesting, it would probably not be
sufficient to say that

std::string trace() const;

returns an implementation-defined string, because no-body would
implement it then in the way you are intending. And a function which may
simply return an empty string is not worth the effort of standardizing it.

HTH & Greetings from Bremen,

Daniel Kr?gler

--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]