On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Ivan Pozdeev <vano@mail.mipt.ru> wrote:
Adding errno-specific subexceptions 1) makes some errnos privileged at the expense of others
Why is that a problem? Some errnos *are* more important than others - they're the ones the regularly appear on the right hand side of "errno == <some_errno>" checks.
2) introduces a list that isn't bound to any objective characteristic and is just an arbitrary "favorites" list
Why would you consider new classes that would be based on a survey of the errnos that developers actually check for in published code to be "arbitrary"?
3) adds types that characterize single errors rather than error classes which is an unnecessary level of complexity.
Any new IOError subclasses would likely still characterise classes of errors rather than single errno values. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia