Date: 2007-05-14 01:49:00
> > Nice - but I don't know why posix errors are enumerated now.
> The LWG wanted them to be usable as constants.
I believe that will cause problems because EAGAIN could have the same
value as EWOULDBLOCK (for instance LINUX).
> > Maybe some
> > posix errors are missing (I'm not sure).
> Please do an independent check. I have missed something. The
> POSIX folks suggested adding a couple of new errors POSIX is
> in process of adding, by the way.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk