Re: [Capy review] Some questions

On Wednesday, June 24th, 2026 at 10:13 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve Gerbino wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 at 8:08 PM, Ruben Perez via Boost
> > <[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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why? std::errc is an error condition enum, not an error code enum.
> >
> > To clarify, I mean our error conditions as indicated here:
> > https://develop.capy.cpp.al/capy/reference/boost/capy/cond.html
> >
> > "These are the conditions callers should compare against when handling errors
> > from capy operations."
> 
> Even if you keep capy::cond::canceled, you should still make sure
> that comparing against std::errc::operation_canceled works (compares
> equal whenever comparing to cond::cancelled returns true.)
> 
> And this also applies to any other conditions that have standard
> equivalents.

That is how it currently works, it'll be codified in a regression test.
_______________________________________________
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/AYI2U46KMWB6IZDLG7B4ZMZMTC5PQSSV/