[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] [PATCH] libltdl error reporting

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] libltdl error reporting
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:45:24 +0700

Hi Peter,

On 10 Jun 2010, at 21:15, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>> Aside: I'm leaning away from upholding the
>> 'drop-in-with-minimum-edits' philosophy for my rewrite, since the
>> dlfcn.h API seems like a pretty bad design to me.  After all, all
>> people really need to do is call functions with a known name and
>> known signature which happen to be in another library. I'm seriously
>> contemplating using a *much* smaller and cleaner API, which ends up
>> with client code more along the lines of: [[...]]
>> With that as a starting point, it's easy enough to maintain an error
>> stack in an exception struct that wraps around setjmp/longjmp, and to
>> plus some glue to make catching an error thrown from libltdl2 and for
>> unwinding the error stack inside it as easy as possible.  WDYT?
> I think it would be better in c++.

No, that would mean you have to jump through hoops to use it from C.
And it would make me cry myself to sleep at night.  I avoid C++, Perl,
McDonalds and suicide bomber recruiters as much as I possibly can. I'm
still undecided as to which one is worst for your health...

> I am unsure that a rewrite is necessary though.

For me to get any further than I have already, without making things
even uglier than they already are, rearchitecting the whole thing
seems like the best way to learn from the mistakes of the 12 year old
incumbent implementation.

Otherwise I end up staring at it, and spending whole weekends trying
to understand why it handed back another useless file-not-found error.


Gary V. Vaughan (address@hidden)        

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]