Subject: Re: [boost] [system][filesystem v3] Question about error_codearguments
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-26 19:33:17
On Oct 26, 2009, at 7:26 PM, Michael Caisse wrote:
> Peter Foelsche wrote:
>> "Christopher Kohlhoff" <chris_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:1256082527.2327.1341115615_at_[hidden]
>>> The throwing overloads are most typically in small programs or at
>>> program startup. Non-trivial programs will tend towards the second,
>>> non-throwing overload. It is the nature of network applications to
>>> react to errors as part of normal control flow, and exception
>>> is not a good approach for that.
>> You are the author of the asio library in boost?
>> With this kind of thinking, how did you get this position?
> Such an attitude will not get you very far in this
> community. Any point you might try to make will get lost
> in the immaturity. Such banter just shows your inexperience
> with reactionary systems.
Agreed. I am a huge proponent of using exception handling instead of
error codes (virtually everywhere), but considering that ASIO is one
of the best, and most cleverly, designed C++ libraries ever made (up
there with Boost.Graph and Boost.MPL), one should be a tad careful
before bantering like that. The likelihood of one's being a better C++-
using designer than Christopher is not that high, statistically
> I suspect you have a point you would like to make about
> the interface. If you keep the personal attacks out of the
> statement you will be more clearly heard.
If I were Christopher, I would kindly ask for instances in the ASIO
library where exception handling would help readability, performance
or any other aspect. I think there might be such cases, but that would
be like whining about a pimple on Halle Berry's face.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk