[openbeos] Re: B_TRUE/B_FALSE

  • From: Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:37:31 +0200

On 2003-09-21 at 07:21:46 [+0200], Tyler Dauwalder wrote:
> Howdy folks,
> So I've been thinking: sometimes you have a function that returns a boolean
> value, but might fail for whatever reason -- say it takes a filename
> parameter, and you pass it a name for a file that doesn't exist. If you
> leave the return value for the function as a bool, then you have to define
> one of the truth assignments to really mean "either the given truth
> assignment, or the function failed"; sometimes it's really hard to pick
> which truth assignment to use, or you'd like to get an informative error
> code out upon failure.
> Another option is then to use a boolean output parameter and return a
> status_t instead, but output parameters are just annoying.
> So, I'm thinking that if we were to add the following definitions to
> Errors.h:
> #define B_FALSE 0
> #define B_TRUE 1
> then, one could just return a status_t for the function, check for "< B_OK"
> to see if an error occurred (yielding a hopefully useful error code if so),
> and if not, check against B_TRUE or B_FALSE to see what the result of the
> function was.
> You could also define a bool_t or a boolstatus_t type that's identical to
> status_t, but whose use as a return value would flag the function as
> operating as described above instead of just returning a standard status_t.
> Thoughts?

Doesn't sound too bad. bool_t would clash with the equally named RPC type. 
boolstatus_t would be OK with me, but others might find it a bit long -- in 
case that is so, maybe bstatus_t?

CU, Ingo

Other related posts: