Subject: Re: [boost] Reforming Boost.System and <system_error> round 2
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-16 19:08:36
On 01/16/18 22:00, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>> For the record, I was thinking of (and testing) a different
>> implementation that does not involve the `failed` call. Instead, I
>> changed the `error_code` constructors:
> I feel no love for this design. What I want to do is construct an error
> code from some C error code returned to me without additional logic. I
> should not need to know whether the C error code is success or failure.
Someone has to decide what code is a success and what is not. In my
code, it is the creator of `error_code`, who is supposed to be familiar
with the domain. It should usually be `make_error_code`, a facility
coupled with the error category and error domain.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk