[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Bug libstdc++/14493] No std::bad_alloc::what() const

From: pme at gcc dot gnu dot org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/14493] No std::bad_alloc::what() const
Date: 11 Mar 2004 07:35:19 -0000

------- Additional Comments From pme at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-03-11 07:35 
> Honestly, is "std::bad_alloc" really that much more readable than
> "St9bad_alloc"?

The former is at least readable C++.  More importantly, it's what 'new'
is documented as throwing, so a programmer reading (good) documentation
for operator new will see "std::bad_alloc".

>  Especially compared to "bad allocation"?

Sure, we could change that.  I don't think "bad allocation" is any
better than the demangled type name, but we shouldn't be printing
a mangled typeid.  Others felt differently.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]