Subject: Re: [boost] [system] Would it be possible to trial a breaking change to Boost.System and see what happens?
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-14 23:42:24
Chris, am I correct that this is your first post to boost-dev in nearly
If so, welcome back and it's great to see you here again.
> I have only skimmed this thread, but you appear to be operating under
> a misconception.
> The error_code class itself deliberately does *not* imbue zero values
> with the meaning 'success' and non-zero values with the meaning
> 'failure'. An error_code simply represents an integer and a category,
> where the category identifies the source of a particular integer
> value. The specification of the error_code class carefully avoids
> making any judgement as to whether a particular value represents
> success or failure. The construct:
> if (ec) ...
> does not, in and of itself, mean 'if an error ...'. Instead, operator
> bool is specified to behave as the ints do, and the above construct
> should simply be read as 'if non-zero ...'.
Correct. And I don't think anyone on boost-dev who witnessed the Outcome
v1 review is in doubt on the literal meaning of operator bool in error_code.
But that's not what we're discussing really. Rather, I think that there
is widespread agreement here that most code out there working with
error_code has been written by programmers who when they write:
if (ec) ...
... do think that they are writing "if there is an error, then ...".
That is quite distinct from "if ec is not empty, then ..." and very
distinct from "if ec's value is not zero, then ...".
What I are discussing here is whether to do something about the common
mispractice or not i.e. whether, and how much, to change or even break
the system_error API so the incorrectly written code becomes correct.
> Instead, the correspondence of particular error_code values to
> success or failure is context specific and is defined by an API. The
> filesystem and networking libraries do define zero to mean success,
> partly because they are specified in terms of POSIX operations that
> do likewise.
Sure. But you can surely see how sloppy usage has entered widespread
practice here? If all current uses of error_code up until now just
happen to work via "if(ec) ...", then nobody has reason to assume otherwise.
We also are mindful that Outcome/Expected is going to make this problem
much worse because if function A calls functions X, Y and Z, each of
which return error codes with a custom category, then function A may
return an error code of up to four different categories. Each of which
may have its own criteria for what success or failure means.
This thus turns into a problem of composition. If you have many
libraries and many APIs all using custom error code categories, the end
user is currently likely to experience surprise at times through no
fault of their own, because some programmer in some layer in some
library wrote "if(ec) ..." thinking "if there is an error, then ...".
This is what I am trying to avoid, by arguing for a retrofit of
error_code to make it fit what programmers think it means, but currently
> When defining your own API you are free to define your own notion of
> success or failure. One way would be to define your own
> error_condition for this (an intended use case for error_condition),
> but you may also use some other mechanism entirely (indicate failure
> via exception, return value, etc.). You might like to consider this
> approach for your own API that wraps NT kernel calls.
Unnecessary, every API returns an outcome::result<T>.
> I suspect you may be coming unstuck because (unless I am mistaken)
> the expected and outcome classes have baked in the assumption that
> zero means success and non-zero means failure. This isn't the case
> for error_code itself.
Actually one of the main motivations behind Outcome was to rid the
community of ever having to work directly with error_code again. It's
highly error prone, very brittle. With Outcome/Expected that ease of
unenforced errors caused by error_code is mostly mitigated.
BTW, neither Outcome nor Expected have any assumptions about error_code
for the simple reason that you can use any Error type you like e.g.
std::string. As you'll see in the Outcome v2 review next week, it is in
fact common in Outcome v2 to not use error_code for E, but rather a
custom type with custom payload lazy convertible to an error_code. Both
Expected and Outcome implement strict success/failure semantics, not the
mishap prone wooliness of error_code. It's been a big win over the
Outcome also eliminates the dual-API problem in Filesystem. We'll see if
the community likes it (it was the v1 review which suggested the approach).
>> My intended proposal for WG21 is that when you compile code with
>> C++ 23 or later, the new string_view signature takes effect. If
>> you compile with C++ 20 or earlier, the string signature remains.
> The use of string_view is a non-starter. It has unclear ownership
I don't get the mental block people are having on this. The ownership
obviously is by the error category from which it was sourced, so the
storage needs to live as long as there is any instance of the category
anywhere in the process. For most categories, it's a static const string
table anyway living in the const part of the compiled binary.
and does not cater to error sources that compose their messages on
demand (e.g. messages that are obtained from another API function, read
from a file-based catalog, or constructed based on an error code value
that happens to be a bitmask).
Static hashmap cache.
> Yes it would be nice to find a solution for error messages in
> freestanding environments that lack std::string, but string_view
> isn't it.
I'm not so bothered about the freestanding environment issue personally.
I am bothered about the approx 2 seconds per compiland that including
<string> adds if no other STL is being included. In a million file
codebase, that's an extra 23 days of compute time per build. It's
Outcome was very specifically designed to be used in the public
interface header files of million file codebases, so for me eliminating
the include of <string> is highly important.
For the v2 Outcome review end of this week, I will be using
<system_error> to make the review easier. But I do intend to eventually
do something about the <string> include, probably some sort of
lightweight subset of system_error for the standalone Outcome.
It's why I opened this discussion here, I want to see if Boost will take
the initiative on this and save me the hassle.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk