Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? hga@xxxxxx (19 Sep 2019 13:27 UTC)
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? Lassi Kortela (19 Sep 2019 13:34 UTC)
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? John Cowan (19 Sep 2019 20:26 UTC)
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? Lassi Kortela (19 Sep 2019 20:54 UTC)
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? John Cowan (19 Sep 2019 21:04 UTC)
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? Lassi Kortela (19 Sep 2019 21:21 UTC)
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? hga@xxxxxx (19 Sep 2019 21:23 UTC)
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? Lassi Kortela (19 Sep 2019 21:32 UTC)
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? hga@xxxxxx (19 Sep 2019 22:12 UTC)
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? Lassi Kortela (20 Sep 2019 10:37 UTC)
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? John Cowan (20 Sep 2019 11:27 UTC)

Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? Lassi Kortela 19 Sep 2019 20:54 UTC

> I agree that this is a great idea, provided someone else does it.  :-)

I can draft one if it doesn't matter that it may take a month. I've used
the WinAPI error functions which may help a little.

The pet feature I'd like to have is retrieving errno values from
standard RnRS I/O procedures; I'll need some input from more experienced
Schemers for how to best accomplish that. Probably the SRFI should
specify an (os-error? <some-exception>) procedure to which exceptions
from RnRS I/O procedures can answer #t.

I think libexplain was the name of that friendly-unix-errors library you
linked some time ago. It'd be nice to draft a SRFI on top of which an
equivalent pure-Scheme library is easy to implement.