Subject: Re: [boost] Reforming Boost.System and <system_error> round 2
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-16 13:30:55
On 01/16/18 02:37, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> On 1/15/18 1:18 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>> That leaves the request to fix "if(ec) ..." which right now returns true
>> if the value is 0, despite that much code writes "if(ec) ..." to mean
>> "if error then ...". There is also the issue of error coding schemes not
>> being able to have more than one success value, which usually must be 0.
>> That's the remaining discussion point.
> I apologize for parachuting into the discussion ...Â But ...
> Can't one just have "if(ec) ..." invoke a syntax error?
Obviously, this will break lots of code for no good reason. I think, the
understanding of the meaning of such tests is more or less established.
The problem is to make it support additional use cases without
penalizing the existing code too much.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk