Ingo Weinhold wrote: > > On 2008-05-21 at 01:05:51 [+0200], kaoutsis <kaoutsis@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Ingo Weinhold wrote: > > > wrote: > > > Anyway, it certainly doesn't harm to try, but I have little hope that > > > this will have any effect. If the standard maintainers consider the > > > request, they are in a dilemma. Undoing the Issue 6 error codes > > > change means that all the applications that relied on it would become > > > non-conforming. > > > > > > > > I agree. > > I had an idea how to tackle the problem, may be good, may be bad: > > The main problem is not binary compatibility. The problem is that the Be > API requires that error codes be negative. E.g. create_sem() returns a > non-negative value (the sem_id) when successful, a negative error code > otherwise. A good deal of other functions/methods use the same strategy, > and so does third party code. Making our error codes positive will break > them all. > > Changing concerned API functions to return -1 and set errno would be an > option, but that would be quite a bit of work and third party software > would have to be changed as well. Personally I don't even find this > option very appealing. To be honest, I don't like that either. Checking error codes happens virtually all over the place, at least in code I have written. That would be a major pain to change. I don't find the errno thing more elegant either, maybe I am missing something though. Best regards, -Stephan