Re: [Capy review] Some questions
Steve Gerbino via Boost <[email protected]> Tue, 23 Jun 2026 17:52:36 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <VtQuyHEPsL9sGYwvNa7uvZ1g7CvP88zEBzopJ0W2eqk_EdAnGbXzc4T17K6wuyM1E9bulVWW70uHcIKucyJyTdweXj6X3NTXJkxQJ7luodY=@gerbino.co> |
On Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 at 7:48 PM, Ruben Perez <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 4) Does capy::cond::canceled add anything vs. just using > > > std::errc::operation_canceled? > > > > No, it doesn't. It is there for consistency with our error types that don't have std spellings. > > Would it make sense to just use the errc one and remove capy's? Maybe > Peter can suggest something here? We have a convention throughout the project to always compare against error conditions. Making a change like that would make it the oddball. _______________________________________________ Boost mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/ Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/47UQUZV6MUTSNZCQFMM7FHBA7OBJ3ZTU/