Subject: Re: [boost] [system][filesystem v3] Question abouterror_code arguments
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-27 14:47:59
Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> Perhaps, we could mark the non-throwing overloads as deprecated in
>> the Standard? Like strstreams, they are there but generally
>> throwing overloads are more preferred.
> Why is it necessary to impose a single view on the language? Authors
> often give advice and situations demand certain concessions. Isn't
> it reasonable to accommodate many use cases? If you're too
> restrictive, you make C++ less appealing and users will choose other
> languages. Is that helpful?
I wouldn't say that it would narrow the language in some way. You still
get the same functionality, only error reporting mechanism is in
question. Using exceptions for this purpose is, well... following the
language spirit, so to say, while mandating a dual approach honors code
diversity. I happened to support some code that used both exceptions and
error codes for error reporting, and I must say it was a pain. I think,
at least for educational purposes one form of functions (the throwing
one) should be highlighted as preferred.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk