On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Mondor
<[email protected]>wrote:
> I noticed that functions such as WRITE-SEQUENCE will signal a condition
> of type SIMPLE-ERROR if EPIPE is returned when writing. This is
> admitedly in non-standard territory, as only TYPE-ERROR is specified
> for WRITE-SEQUENCE.
>
> I could wrap these calls closely inside a HANDLER-CASE/HANDLER-BIND and
> perhaps signal there another custom condition, but without printing the
> error, it's still awkward for code to determine the exact error cause
> (I don't see an ERRNO slot in the SIMPLE-ERROR condition object). I
> also wondered if such cases shouldn't actually signal a FILE-ERROR or
> perhaps even a C-ERROR, which could include an ERRNO slot?
>
I would say no ERRNO is needed, provided we have the appropriate error
hierarchy. Right now ECL does not return ERRNO in any of the errors
generated by the C library. To be fair, the errno would be rather useless
unless we exported also a list of constants with values such as EPIPE, etc.
Juanjo
--
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Ecls-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecls-list
