posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai 15 Aug 2020 07:54 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments hga@xxxxxx 15 Aug 2020 10:57 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 15 Aug 2020 11:16 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments hga@xxxxxx 15 Aug 2020 11:50 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela 15 Aug 2020 12:09 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments hga@xxxxxx 15 Aug 2020 12:42 UTC
Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela 15 Aug 2020 13:10 UTC
Re: Synthetic errno values John Cowan 15 Aug 2020 15:19 UTC
Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela 15 Aug 2020 15:34 UTC
Re: Synthetic errno values hga@xxxxxx 15 Aug 2020 16:02 UTC
Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 07:58 UTC
Re: Synthetic errno values hga@xxxxxx 16 Aug 2020 12:39 UTC
Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 13:07 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai 16 Aug 2020 01:11 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments hga@xxxxxx 16 Aug 2020 02:26 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai 16 Aug 2020 02:30 UTC
Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? hga@xxxxxx 16 Aug 2020 02:43 UTC
Re: Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 09:06 UTC
Re: Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? hga@xxxxxx 16 Aug 2020 13:01 UTC
Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 13:47 UTC
Re: Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 17 Aug 2020 06:11 UTC
Re: Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Lassi Kortela 17 Aug 2020 10:10 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Göran Weinholt 16 Aug 2020 08:52 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 09:01 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai 16 Aug 2020 09:10 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Göran Weinholt 16 Aug 2020 09:40 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 16 Aug 2020 10:20 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai 16 Aug 2020 11:29 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 16 Aug 2020 12:18 UTC
Continuation marks and SRFI 198 Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 11:29 UTC
Re: Continuation marks and SRFI 198 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 16 Aug 2020 12:51 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai 16 Aug 2020 11:17 UTC
Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 11:21 UTC
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? John Cowan 17 Aug 2020 17:06 UTC
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? hga@xxxxxx 17 Aug 2020 18:43 UTC
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Shiro Kawai 17 Aug 2020 22:05 UTC
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 18 Aug 2020 06:09 UTC

Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela 15 Aug 2020 13:10 UTC

>> As far as I can tell, we could solve the errno problem for SRFI 170 by
>> letting the implementor return a foreign-status object with any 'set
>> they want (or no 'set at all, which is the same as #f).
>
> Except this is a tightly specified SRFI.  One problem comes with
> Shiro's scenario where a C level primitive that's not only called by
> SRFI 170 (or in the long term, any of the other POSIX SRFIs that
> extend it), and therefore 'set is unknown, although 'errno, which I'm
> vastly preferring for the key for the errno raw integer, *can* have a
> legitimate value.

Why would 'set be unknown in this case? 'set should be driven precisely
by the C level. If the C function being called returns its error code in
the errno global variable, the 'set should be 'errno for any Scheme
exception raised due that C procedure.

>> But they must always fill in an 'errno property with the
>> errno-equivalent symbol where such is known.
>
> Urg for namespacing

Namespacing is not such a problem when we have the Scheme Registry to
help avoid conflicts.

The 'errno property would be to contain a (possibly) synthetic errno
value. Since it's synthetic, it should be possible to give it to go
along with any 'set.

> it's probably not much of an imposition
> to also report the C define name as a symbol, e.g. 'ENOENT under
> whatever key we decide for the POSIX errno 'set.

The symbol is primary -- the numerical errno values are less useful as
they vary by OS. That's why the synthetic 'errno property should also
use symbols rather than numbers.

>> We could provide a mapping of Windows API error codes to errno values in
>> the sample implementation. Python already does such a mapping in its os
>> module I think.
>
> I really dislike lying to the user.  Perhaps justifiable here, but....

It's not lying to the user if the 'errno property is well-known and
deliberately designed to be synthetic where the real errno is not
available. We could call it 'synthetic-errno for emphasis, but I'm not
sure it adds anything.

A real errno coming from that C variable would carry '(set errno symbol
EINTR number 4) in addition to '(errno EINTR). That's how you can
distinguish the real from the fake.

However, note that C APIs also fake errno values quite often. By no
means is it guaranteed that a C errno comes from the kernel. It can just
be a lower-level synthetic errno and we have no way of knowing. It's all
relative.

>> As explained in another thread, I wouldn't use a 'set property to
>> indicate success vs failure from negative vs nonnegative return values.
>
> Set just tells you the slice of the status and error universe the
> object is in, and ideally it'll be registered in the Schemeregistry.
>
> Unless you use the generic reserved values of 'error or 'status (and
> even then you could lie in using them), it says absolutely nothing
> about whether the foreign status object represents success or failure,
> unless by convention all status in that set are one or the other, which
> is true for the POSIX errno 'set.
>
> If not, that would be the job of a standard key inside it.  Perhaps common
> enough to be added to the Standard set conventions at the end of SRFI 198.
> The 'success? key you suggest below sounds good.

WinAPI also has lots of functions that return NULL vs non-NULL (or FALSE
vs non-FALSE) to mean failure vs success. There are tons of C APIs based
on that principle out there.

>> Infinite sets are not enumerable so those are not really error codes. I
>> would just return a 'success? property that is #t or #f, which gives the
>> same information. If we want to return the precise return value as well,
>> I'd return it in 'number (aka 'code) but leave out the 'set unless it
>> really belongs to a coherently defined set of particular error values.
>
> And here I say for the last point you make above, use 'set with either
> 'error or 'status as the value to signal that the status object is *not*
> one of those "coherently defined set[s] of particular error values."
>
> Which could actually save a lot of effort by telling people, don't
> look to the Schemeregistry to figure out what the additional keys mean,
> read the documentation or source code that's using SRFI 198 in this
> very generic way.

But why have the 'set property when the number is not part of a finite,
grovelable set? If all properties default to #f, then 'set #f is a
natural way to say that we don't have one.

It would however be useful to say that the number which we know nothing
about is from libsodium. Would a 'source property separate from 'set
make sense? And/or say the name of the C function it came from.

Does libsodium use each negative number with the same meaning in all of
its functions, or does the same number mean different things when coming
from a different function?

It's likely we'll amass many useful set-independent properties over the
years. This is something I didn't envision when we started design work.