Re: [boost] [system][filesystem v3] Question abouterror_code arguments

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.