🚀 go-pugleaf

I have a minor question about the exception types defined by the draft
standard: Is there any consistent logic behind the names?  Here is a
list of the names I found in the april draft:
  exception         logic_error        domain_error
  invalid_argument  length_error       out_of_range
  runtime_error     range_error        overflow_error

In addition, at least these are used:
  bad_alloc         bad_cast           bad_exception
  bad_typeid

Would it be possible to have consistent naming for all these types so
that
  - only one naming scheme needs to be remembered
  - more "space" is left for user-defined types
  - possibly a promise could be made what kind of names are used
    for exception in the future (eg *_error or bad_*)

This issue is mainly about convenience, but important because most
applications will be doing the equivalent of "using namespace std;",
and the resulting conflicts could become overwhelming.

//LaT
-- 
Lassi A. Tuura                           Have you not known?
Lassi.Tuura@hut.fi                       Have you not heard?

[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]