At 12:41 AM 1/20/00 -0600, sam th wrote:
>The reason that I wanted to use error codes is that they fit better into
>overall error handling. There are several reasons for this. first, there
>are more error codes than just in file i/o, which is all that there are
>IEStatus codes for. (There aren't even enough status codes for all the
>i/o errors.) Second, using errorcodes allows for a function that has some
>calls returning IEStatus, and some returning errorcodes. I think that
>both of the functions I've worked with that used IEStatus have been like
>this. In short, IEStatus just is not as flexible as UT_ErrorCode.
>Just to clear up any misunderstanding, I did not create error codes, even
>though I have written most of the code that handles them (I think). There
>were already two defined when I started about 10 days ago.
Yep. Sounds like UT_Error is a superset of IEStatus. If so, why not just
nuke IEStatus in favor of UT_Error?
>I used lower case because the creator of UT_ErrorCode had. If that should
>change, I could do that fairly easily.
Thanks. Please do.
Paul
