Subject: Re: [boost] [system] Would it be possible to trial a breaking change to Boost.System and see what happens?
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-14 05:02:09
Christopher Kohlhoff wrote:
> The error_code class itself deliberately does *not* imbue zero values with
> the meaning 'success' and non-zero values with the meaning 'failure'. An
> error_code simply represents an integer and a category, where the category
> identifies the source of a particular integer value. The specification of
> the error_code class carefully avoids making any judgement as to whether a
> particular value represents success or failure. The construct:
>
> if (ec) ...
>
> does not, in and of itself, mean 'if an error ...'. Instead, operator bool
> is specified to behave as the ints do, and the above construct should
> simply be read as 'if non-zero ...'.
...
> Instead, the correspondence of particular error_code values to success or
> failure is context specific and is defined by an API.
I don't agree. In the general case,
void f( error_code& ec )
{
ec.clear();
do_f1( ec );
if( !ec ) return;
do_f2( ec );
if( !ec ) return;
do_f3( ec );
if( !ec ) return;
}
`f` should not need to know what errors are being returned by `do_f1`,
`do_f2`, `do_f3`, in order to check whether the calls succeeded; the whole
point of using error_code is that errors from different domains can be
handled in a generic manner.
This is similar to exceptions; `f` needs not know what callees can throw.
Today, `do_f1` is implemented with backend A, so it throws A-flavored
exceptions; tomorrow, it switches to backend B and throws B-flavored
exceptions. The logic in `f` doesn't change.
In the same way, whether `do_f1` returns error codes of category A or
category B should not matter for the logic in `f`. There must exist a
generic way to test for failure. If !ec is not it, well, then !ec shouldn't
be used and we need something that is and should be.