Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:22:41 +0000 From: Peter Edwards <peadar.edwards@gmail.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Header files with enums instead of defines? Message-ID: <34cb7c84041222162210f14238@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20041222.115155.71839775.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <34cb7c8404122205002bd7de18@mail.gmail.com> <20041222.113411.76074974.imp@bsdimp.com> <41C9C015.7050706@freebsd.org> <20041222.115155.71839775.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Or better yet, just use the array of error values already compiled > into the programs that strerror() formats for you (you don't need to > use strerror, just sys_errlist[]). I'd dispute the "better yet": If used in code, "errno_t" is useful in its own right. Even beyond the type safety, if used in a structure > (gdb) print *structptr Will print errno_t members properly, without requiring hints that fields represent errno values, etc. (ie, it's a hint to the debugger that something of type errno_t conveys more specific information than a value between INT_MIN and INT_MAX.) Although textual descriptions are better than the errno names to users, "err_EBADF" means much more than "9" in a debug output to the programmer running the debugger. Sorry for splitting hairs. (But the bikeshed should definitely be blue) -- Peadar.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34cb7c84041222162210f14238>