-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
>> One external thing to consider here is "who edits key files". I
>> don't expect non-pro guy doing anything there, so key files
>> probably are unlikely to be broken (low probability).
>>
>
> Yes, but I still don't want stack unwinding to occur. In my use
> case the rest of the key file must still be read successfully. If
> it was possible to give up on errors I would move error handling
> somewhere higher up in the call stack and use exceptions.
You can wrap every individual call to get_* with try-catch (write your
own helper function for this). Should such convenience method be part
of Glibmm itself is a debate, of course.
>> Do think that "if" is more convenient that "try-catch"? I'm not
>> sure about that. If you think of more convenient getter for key,
>> I'd think of passing default value as last argument, that would
>> be returned in case key is missing or not valid. I think that
>> would cover most of the cases, the remaining few could deal with
>> exceptions.
>>
>
> Yes, I think that a simple conditional is a better approach in
> this specific use-case: * Using exceptions to rewind the stack by
> one level is fundamentally wrong. One can do that, but that's not
> idiomatic C++.
No, that's what exceptions were designed for. What is wrong is
wrapping every statement in try-catch.
> * Using a default value is not workable when the range of input
> data must not be reduced (which is one of my requirements).
I don't quite understand what you're trying to achieve. Your point is
to make Glib::KeyFile "easier to use", but I don't really see, how
your proposal achieves that. Returning a wrapper object and writing if
to check it's value does not seem to be "easier" than wrapping a call
in try-catch:
int val;
try {
val = key_file.get_integer("a", "b");
}
catch(Glib::KeyFileError &) {
val = 0; // let this be default value
}
int val;
auto opt = f.get_integer_opt("a", "b");
if(opt) {
val = *opt;
}
else {
val = 0; // let this be default value
}
As you can see, your proposal in my case result in more code.
Can you present a use-case, where it makes things easier?
- --
Aurimas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSvJJjAAoJECtTeRAzEaLPFiwH/j4XGOvlJNfhU+u4Vng2FDI1
rRlHd2oQQLxbYNGPPvMdWxfThxKWQHLnhsbuvswO4APOXXO3xu92YlmapUNUdrkM
IVsOjq8soWluUH9ZYOAOq6JCDqorN+yd481ZiMgyOIw1GRcABQUsIEqVjkYC6euD
RHgVnHWIoE1+OsAY6hWuN/uv8aJ/SqQ4WnsrNIlH5gALRAuEfGs2kPBH0o6emIia
rOXjwPCYfkb4hYGhoS3wdq52y7Xjn+siN8VhvL7JNxFr/49xZZuXd5f6mXhjSXar
+MEc4QLUuHu1r7zjx/cP/s2cwjWHhS2Mc52zLxBOfW+d5rVp8HMqXO63xObSmkA=
=Mqfq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
