Re: [boost] Re: Re: [iostreams] names for non-blocking characterproperties

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-08 15:51:18

From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> 
> > I don't see how "would_block" can be construed as "unix-y" since
> > it merely indicates that the requested operation would have
> > blocked had it not returned that value.
> 
> I got the name from EWOULDBLOCK. Maybe I should have said posix-y?

I wasn't quibbling over unix versus posix, just that "would
block" is not a phrase that immediately connotes unix.

> > Other options would be:
> >
> >    unavailable
> > if (read(...) == unavailable)
> >    not_now
> > if (read(...) == not_now)
> >    nothing_now
> > if (read(...) == nothing_now)
> >    maybe_later
> > if (read(...) == maybe_later)
> 
> :-)
> 
> I think if you keep calling read like above, the failure messages should get
> stronger and stronger:
> 
> if (read(...) == unavailable) { }
> if (read(...) == unavailable) { }
> if (read(...) == i_said_unavailable) { }
> if (read(...) == are_you_a_complete_idiot)

LOL!

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;