Back after the Outcome discussion died down, I started a thread discussing making breaking changes to Boost.System to test the feasibility of fixing some of the unfortunate design choices now apparent through hindsight in ``. I won one argument - constexprification - the others I lost. I said at the time that I'd go off and make a better mousetrap i.e. a proposed ``. That proposed `` is now ready for feedback: Single file include: https://github.com/ned14/status-code/raw/develop/single-header/system_error2... Github: https://github.com/ned14/status-code Docs: https://ned14.github.io/status-code/ Lots of detail about the differences between proposed `` and `` is in the front page of the docs and pasted after this email, but essentially it fixes all the problems listed in https://wg21.link/P0824, and a few other problems I considered important as well. It works well in C++ 11, is believed to be freestanding C++ (https://wg21.link/P0829) friendly, and generates really lovely and tight codegen. If SG14 smile upon it in the April meeting, it'll be heading to Rapperswil for standardisation. Boost members should be aware that there will be shortly a push by the WG21 leadership to improve the current state of exception and error handling in the C++ standard as it is becoming increasingly obvious that the current design is no longer sufficient. You may see a paper on that from the leadership at Jacksonville, if not then fairly definitely you will at Rapperswil. This proposed `` *may* have a part to play in the reform proposals, if it is felt that this approach is a wise one by SG14, you guys here, and then WG21. So, as a quick introduction given that there is no documentation, instead of `error_code` we have a `status_code<D>` where `D` is the type of the code's *domain*. The domain provides all of the heavy lifting so status code itself can be trivial. Status codes can be type erased of their domain, you can always erase to `status_code<void>` but at the cost that it cannot be copied, moved nor deleted. If your domain's value type is trivially copyable, it can also be type erased into any `status_code` where `U` is an integer type, and the size of the erased status code is bigger or equal to its unerased form. There is a special status_code called `generic_code`, which is a typedef for `status_code<_generic_code_domain_impl>`. Its value type is `errc`, which is a slight superset of `std::errc`. The reason it is special is because it is the baseline error code, all other codes must be semantically comparable to it, if that is possible. In current STL speak, `generic_code` is what `std::error_condition` with a `std::generic_category` is. On all POSIX platforms, we provide a `posix_code`. Its value type is `int`, as from `errno`. This maps the local POSIX implementation's error coding. It is *not* necessarily equal to `generic_code`, but usually is a superset, so all codes in `generic_code` can exist in `posix_code`, but not the other way round. On Windows, we have three main system error coding systems, so we have `win32_code`, `nt_code` and `com_code`. Their value types are `DWORD` from GetLastError(), `LONG` from `NTSTATUS`, and `HRESULT` from Microsoft COM. On all systems, there is a typedef `system_code` which is to the erased status code sufficiently large that you are guaranteed that all possible system error coding schemes can be safely erased into it. For POSIX, this is `status_code`, as `int` can hold all possible error codings. For Windows, this is `status_code>`, as `intptr_t` can hold any of a `DWORD`, a `LONG` and a `HRESULT`. All comparisons between status codes are *semantic*. As in, `operator==()` returns true if the two types are semantically equal e.g. `win32_code(ERROR_SUCCESS) == generic_code(errc::success) == com_code(S_OK)`. Semantic comparison is the only form of comparison, if you want literal comparison, it can be done by hand by comparing value and domain by hand. There is no boolean testing at all, as it is ambiguous as we learned with `std::error_code`. One always writes: `if(sc.failure()) ...` etc. `status_code` can represent success codes, failure codes, and empty. Empty is there to say "no code was set". Empty is neither a success, nor a failure. It is there for code where a virtual function call to determine success/failure is too expensive and where the domain is known for a fact to only ever represent failure. You should only ever use empty as a local optimisation, and never ever expose empty status codes to code that you don't 100% control. And that's basically it. Idiomatic usage is for extern functions to return type erased status codes or to take one by lvalue reference. Code local to the translation unit uses typed status codes, and lets any implicit conversion into the erased form occur as needed. I've copy and pasted relevant excerpts from the Readme.txt below for those not willing to click on a link. If you have any questions, please do shout. My next step is to start work on preparing Outcome for entry into Boost now a month of settling time has passed since the review. Once the Jacksonville meeting has finished and I've done any post-meeting correspondence, I'll be starting on my (currently five!) papers for Rapperswil where I'll hopefully be attending my very first WG21 meeting! Niall --- Readme.md (excerpt) -- Solves the problems for low latency/large code base users with `` as listed by [WG21 P0824](https://wg21.link/P0824). This proposed `` library is EXPERIMENTAL and is subject to change as the committee evolves the design. To fetch a drop-in standalone single file implementation: ``` wget https://github.com/ned14/status-code/raw/develop/single-header/system_error2... ``` ## Features: - Portable to any C++ 11 compiler. These are known to work: - >= GCC 5 (due to requiring libstdc++ 5 for sufficient C++ 11 type traits) - >= clang 3.3 with a new enough libstdc++ (previous clangs don't implement inheriting constructors) - >= Visual Studio 2015 (previous MSVC's don't implement inheriting constructors) - Aims to cause zero code generated by the compiler most of the time. - Never calls `malloc()`. - Header-only library friendly. - Type safe yet with type erasure in public interfaces so it can scale across huge codebases. - Minimum compile time load, making it suitable for use in the global headers of multi-million line codebases. ## Problems with `` solved: 1. Does not cause `#include <string>`, and thus including the entire STL allocator and algorithm machinery, thus preventing use in freestanding C++ as well as substantially impacting compile times which can be a showstopper for very large C++ projects. Only includes the following headers: - `<atomic>` to reference count localised strings retrieved from the OS. - `<cassert>` to trap when misuse occurs. - `<cerrno>` for the generic POSIX error codes (`errno`) which is required to define `errc`. - `<cstddef>` for the definition of `size_t` and other types. - `<cstring>` for the system call to fetch a localised string and C string functions. - `<exception>` for the basic `std::exception` type so we can optionally throw STL exceptions. - `` so we can permit in-place construction. - `<new>` so we can perform placement new. - `` as we need to do some very limited metaprogramming. - `<utility>` if on C++ 17 or later for `std::in_place`. These may look like a lot, but in fact just including `<atomic>` on libstdc++ actually brings in most of the others in any case, and a total of 200Kb (8,000 lines) of text is including by `system_error2.hpp` on libstdc++ 7. Compiling a file including `status_code.hpp` takes less than 150 ms with clang 3.3 as according to the `-ftime-report` diagnostic (a completely empty file takes 5 ms). 2. Unlike `std::error_code` which was designed before `constexpr`, this proposed implementation has all-`constexpr` construction and destruction with as many operations as possible being trivial or literal, with only those exact minimum operations which require runtime code generation being non-trivial (note: requires C++ 14 for a complete implementation of this). 3. This in turn means that we solve a long standing problem with `std::error_category` in that it is not possible to define a safe custom C++ 11 error category in a header only library where semantic comparisons would randomly break depending on the direction of wind blowing when the linker ran. This proposed design is 100% safe to use in header only libraries. 4. `std::error_code`'s boolean conversion operator i.e. `if(ec) ...` has become unfortunately ambiguous in real world C++ out there. Its correct meaning is "if `ec` has a non-zero value". Unfortunately, much code out in the wild uses it as if "if `ec` is errored". This is incorrect, though safe most of the time where `ec`'s category is well known i.e. non-zero values are always an error. For unknown categories supplied by third party code however, it is dangerous and leads to unpleasant, hard-to-debug, surprise. The `status_code` proposed here suffers from no such ambiguity. It can be one of exactly three meanings: (i) success (ii) failure (iii) empty (uninitialised). There is no boolean conversion operator, so users must write out exactly what they mean e.g. `if(sc.success()) ...`, `if(sc.failure()) ...`, `if(sc.empty()) ...`. 5. Relatedly, `status_code` can now represent successful (informational) codes as well as failure codes. Unlike `std::error_code` where zero is given special meaning, we impose no requirements at all on the choice of coding. This permits safe usage of more complex C status coding such as the NT kernel's `NTSTATUS`, which is a `LONG` whereby bits 31 and 30 determine which of four categories the status is (success, informational, warning, error), or the very commone case where negative numbers mean failure and positive numbers mean success-with-information. 6. The relationship between `std::error_code` and `std::error_condition` is confusing to many users reading code based on ``, specifically when is a comparison between codes *semantic* or *literal*? `status_code` makes all comparisons *semantic*, **always**. If you want a literal comparison, you can do one by hand by comparing domains and values directly. 7. `std::error_code` enforced its value to always be an `int`. This is problematic for coding systems which might use a `long` and implement coding namespaces within the extended number of bits, or for end users wishing to combine a code with a `void *` in order to transmit payload or additional context. As a result, `status_code` is templated to its domain, and the domain sets its type. A type erased edition of `status_code<D>` is available as `status_code<void>`, this is for obvious reasons non-copyable, non-movable and non-destructible. A more useful type erased edition is `status_code` which is available if `D::value_type` is trivially copyable, `T` is an integral type, and `sizeof(T) >= sizeof(D::value_type)`. This lets you use `status_code` in all your public interfaces without restrictions. As a pointer to the original category is retained, and trivially copyable types may be legally copied by `memcpy()`, type erased status codes work exactly as normal, except that publicly it does not advertise its type. 8. `std::system_category` assumes that there is only one "system" error coding, something mostly true on POSIX, but not elsewhere. This library defines `system_code` to a type erased status code sufficiently large enough to carry any of the system error codings on the current platform. This allows code to construct the precise error code for the system failure in question, and return it type erased from the function. Depending on the system call which failed, a function may therefore return any one of many system code domains. 9. Too much `` code written for POSIX uses `std::generic_category` when they really meant `std::system_category` because the two are interchangeable on POSIX. Further confusion stems from `std::error_condition` also sharing the same coding and type. This causes portability problems. This library's `generic_code` has a value type of `errc` which is a strong enum. This prevents implicit confusion with `posix_code`, whose value type is an `int` same as `errno` returns. There is no distinction between codes and conditions in this library, rather we treat `generic_code` as something special, because it represents `errc`. The cleanup of these ambiguities in `` should result in users writing clearer code with fewer unintended portability problems. -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/