|
Boost : |
From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-29 12:57:55
Vladimir Prus wrote:
>John Torjo wrote:
> >>> I really wish there were exception-throwing versions -- since that
> >>> code is
> >>> boring and still contains a couple of error-handling problems.
> >>> However, most
> >>> of the functions above are acutally from POSIX, not from standard C,
> >>> so I'm
> >>> not sure how much wrapped C functions would help me.
> > Unless I'm mistaken, you're talking something similar to Andrei
> > Alexandrescu's ENFORCE:
> > http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8250/cujcexp2106alexandr/
>Yes, you're right. However, there's one additional wish -- I'd like an
>appraoch different macroses for different functions. E.g. for POSIX calls I
>only encounter -1 returns and NULL returns for error reporting. So I'd like
> int tty = check(open(check(ctermid(0)), O_RDRW);
>to work. I guess this could be done by providing two overloads for the
>'Wrong' function...., but not, the 'Enforcer' template only works for
>specific type of return value :-(
My errorcheck class (see other posts) has an error policy where you can
change the fail test. The default is to test errorcode < 0.
A current weakness is that it does not return the value passed to it on
assignment, so you cannot use exactly like the above example. I have been
updating it to support errno handling, but this (at present) requires
something like:
boost::errorcheck< ... > check;
FILE * fp = ::fopen( 0, "r" );
check( fp != 0 ); // assert-like syntax
::fclose( fp );
If you are interested, I'll work on supporting constructs like your example
above.
Regards,
Reece
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk