posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (15 Aug 2020 07:55 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 Lassi Kortela (15 Aug 2020 12:09 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 01:12 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 02:44 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 08:55 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 09:02 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 09:11 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Göran Weinholt (16 Aug 2020 09:44 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 12:52 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 17:07 UTC)
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? hga@xxxxxx (17 Aug 2020 18:44 UTC)
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Shiro Kawai (17 Aug 2020 22:06 UTC)
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (18 Aug 2020 06:09 UTC)

Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 13:07 UTC

> Quick reply on just one detail we're currently discussing.

Sure! It's good that you limit our posting volume :)

>> Good point. On success we simply don't raise an error, so any raised
>> 'libsodium status is an error status.
>>
>> I agree with you that we need to have _some_ property that says
>> 'libsodium. I'm not sure 'set is the right one.
>
> That's what I'm envisioning 'subset for.  I.e.:
>
> '(set genetic-c-lib subset libsodium)
> '(set sqlstate subset postgresql)
>
>> 'errno is clearly an error set, but all errno errors don't come from
>> POSIX either.
>
> And thus perhaps '(set posix/errno/whatever subset native-windows).  But
> maybe not 'linux, 'openbsd, or any other system that claims to be
> "actual, real not emulated POSIX" or thereabouts.

A native-windows error has both a WinAPI error code (always) as well as
a synthetic errno equivalent (most of the time).

We can either:

1) give the WinAPI error code and say nothing about errno;
2) drop the WinAPI code and give only a synthetic errno;
3) give both the WinAPI code and a synthetic errno

The two codes are from different error sets so there's not way to fit
them all into one set. Unless we add 'subcode to go with 'subset, but
it's getting excessive.

This is exactly the kind of problem I've run into when trying to place
everything into disjoint categories instead of a tagging system that
permits multiple tags. In this case, it makes sense for same error to be
tagged as both 'windows and 'errno, with a different code for each.

In fact, I'm starting to doubt even the 'set concept a little. Error
sets probably disjoint, but there may be exceptions.