On 13 Mar 2015 08:55, "Daniel Stenberg" <dan...@haxx.se> wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2015, Will Cosgrove wrote: > >>> But they're different error codes, they're not in a single number range. >> >> >> They are in a single range across the project, look at _FX_ and _KNOWNHOST_ errors. For example: >> >> LIBSSH2_KNOWNHOST_CHECK_MISMATCH 1 >> LIBSSH2_FX_EOF 1 >> >> These types of collisions are not great, IMHO. > > > They are the same values because they actually are in different ranges. But I also recognize that it isn't very ovious since the functions all just return 'int' - which I think is unfortunate but really a design choice made back in the days we still lived in caves. > > Changing them to different typedef'ed variables depending on what error code range they return would be a good thing for a future API update. > > >> we have a function like errorMessageFromCode(int code), the _code_ is the code coming from any o’l libssh function call. > > > But that's the mistake. All libssh2 functions don't return the same error code set. The libssh2_knownhost*() functions for example only return error codes in the LIBSSH2_KNOWNHOST_CHECK_* series.
If I may weigh in here, the known_host return codes aren't error codes at all. That's where the misunderstanding has occurred. Most libssh2 return codes are indeed errors. You can think of them as exceptions, in a language that has that feature. Apart from EAGAIN, you never call a libssh2 function expecting to recieve one of those errors. Contrast that with the known_host functions. There the return code is a result, not an error. You call those functions fully expecting to get any of the possible values returned. Alex
_______________________________________________ libssh2-devel http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libssh2-devel
