Niall Douglas wrote:
But if I am writing my implementation that way, it is because there is no
purpose here to my function returning empty. Else I would implement it
differently.
I appreciate that the above is me speaking vaguely from experience and
without concrete evidence.
I usually place high value on argument from experience, even if presented
without evidence.
But in this case, you've cited
https://github.com/ned14/boost.afio/blob/master/include/boost/afio/v2.0/deta...
which is this:
result file_handle::file(file_handle::path_type _path,
file_handle::mode _mode, file_handle::creation _creation,
file_handle::caching _caching, file_handle::flag flags) noexcept
{
result ret(file_handle(native_handle_type(), 0, 0,
std::move(_path), _caching, flags));
native_handle_type &nativeh = ret.get()._v;
BOOST_OUTCOME_TRY(attribs,
attribs_from_handle_mode_caching_and_flags(nativeh, _mode, _creation,
_caching, flags));
nativeh.behaviour |= native_handle_type::disposition::file;
const char *path_ = ret.value()._path.c_str();
nativeh.fd = ::open(path_, attribs, 0x1b0 /*660*/);
if(-1 == nativeh.fd)
return make_errored_result(errno,
last190(ret.value()._path.native()));
BOOST_AFIO_LOG_FUNCTION_CALL(nativeh.fd);
if(!(flags & flag::disable_safety_unlinks))
{
BOOST_OUTCOME_TRYV(ret.value()._fetch_inode());
}
if(_creation == creation::truncate &&
ret.value().are_safety_fsyncs_issued())
fsync(nativeh.fd);
return ret;
}
Now, the first line constructs
result ret(file_handle(native_handle_type(), 0, 0,
std::move(_path), _caching, flags));
and it's immediately apparent that returning `ret` in this initial state
makes no sense. That is, you either need to further initialize it into a
valid file_handle, or return an "errored" result.
For this reason, I'd think that a style that does
file_handle fh(native_handle_type(), 0, 0, std::move(_path), _caching,
flags);
first, then initializes it appropriately, and as a final step returns it via
result, would perhaps make more sense (and also save a number
of ret.value() calls).
