Re: The name "srfi-170-error" hga@xxxxxx 27 Jun 2020 16:02 UTC

> From: Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>
> Date: Saturday, June 27, 2020 10:22 AM
>
> > Last year Lassie and I
>
> Woof! :-)

Oops, I knew I'd make that mistake sooner or later
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lassie).

>> were thinking we should create a Grand Unified
>> Scheme Error System, inspired in part by the neat system of coding
>> Oracle uses in its error reporting.  This anticipated transition
>> suggests we should work on it ASAP.
>
> Good call.

Thanks, let's do it.

> Since SRFI 198 is very Unix-specific, we should perhaps submit a new
> SRFI about the generic framework.

I agree, 198 has unique APIs like errno-string (which you propose to
enhance, although that's not 198 API visible), and errno-name, which
gives you the define name, e.g. ENOENT.

> However, it might be a good idea to take the Windows API (and perhaps
> other OS error APIs) into account in 198.

Is there any 198 API difference that will be visible besides
errno-name?  Which on Windows could just return an empty string, or
maybe something concise that's Windows meaningful?

- Harold