On Jul 29, 2013 3:51 PM, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[email protected]> wrote: > Empirically, this is over-stating the requirements. As a counter-example, the UNIX ERRNO space has been expanded and updated many times over the years, and most programs were unaffected by any given change.
This confuses me. Afaik, posix and UNIX errno specifically meets all of a,b,c. It does not meet zz, which I admit is optional. My words may have been unclear. My definition of a,b means if I handle only binary success/fail.. I should be compatible with all future binary updates. Unix + errno uses a zero return for success and non zero failure. Functions which don't return errors today won't return errors tommorow. Return values are fast. This is my criteria a,b,c. Expection systems which are not 100% declared/checked violate this, since a function which previously did not throw an exception could begin doing so. Afaik, no such system exists which also affords runtime binding.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
