|
|
Boost : |
From: Kevin Lynch (krlynch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-13 12:34:52
Iain K.Hanson wrote:
>> We already have a standard
>>portable
>>error
>> >scheme. Why reinvent the wheel? Will we do any better?
>>
>>We might. The POSIX errno scheme doesn't seem all that strong to me.
>
>
> Agreed. I've given a fair ammount of though to this over the past year
> ( whilst working on sockets). The conclusion I came to was that I would
> rather have a standard C++ name on what ever platform I work on than
> keep having to look them up on every platform.
>
I would hope that if the POSIX naming is not used, that at least the
documentation would contain a clear mapping between the POSIX name and
the C++ name.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Lynch voice: (617) 353-6025 Physics Department Fax: (617) 353-9393 Boston University office: PRB-361 590 Commonwealth Ave. e-mail: krlynch_at_[hidden] Boston, MA 02215 USA http://budoe.bu.edu/~krlynch -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk