2018-01-16 15:22 GMT+01:00 Robert Ramey via Boost
On 1/16/18 5:30 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
On 01/16/18 02:37, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On Can't one just have "if(ec) ..." invoke a syntax error?
Obviously, this will break lots of code for no good reason.
Truth is - If I see this I don't know what it actually means. I bet that half the code that would fail to compile is wrong. So I would argue that this would UNbreak lots of code.
I think, the understanding of the meaning of such tests is more or less
established.
not to me. But maybe that's just me.
The semantics of this `if(ec)` is "conditionally well-defined": provided that you make sure that in all error categories you use throughout your program zero indicates success and non-zero values indicate failure, then (and only then) does this construct test if `ec` represents a failure. Some programs can guarantee that, e.g. if they only use the default category on Unix. Regards, &rzej;