Re: [boost] Filesystem Library mini-review

[Beman Dawes]

At 04:19 PM 12/12/2002, Peter Dimov wrote:

>From: "Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> The alternative I considered was to try to map the system specific code
>> into a POSIX errno code. However, the macros seemed messy for C++.
>
>POSIX errno codes were what I meant, yes. On a POSIX implementation there
>would be no mapping. On Win32, you can use the POSIX-like C RTL functions.
>
>I suppose you can introduce integral constant aliases for the <cerrno>
>macros but is it worth it? Aren't all caps identifiers starting with E
>reserved for the implementation, anyway?

Part of the problem is that there is no guarantee that the macros will be available in <cerrno>. That's messy for Boost; we would have to provide our own and configure accordingly. It might also be messy for standardization; its seems to have a lot of trouble when multiple committees start specifying the contents of the same header. The final worry about a POSIX based scheme is that it might mislead users into thinking every operating system can deliver exactly the POSIX errors and no others. That isn't the case.

I'm not dead set against a POSIX based scheme, but it does seem a bit messier that defining our own.

--Beman


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost