🚀 go-pugleaf

I am of the opinion that the historical reason for returning -1 for errors
came from the fact that a lot of code can then be written:

	if ((foo = bar()) < 0) {
		<error code here>
	}

..which will compile neatly on most machines since all you do is test the
'N' flag (or whatever) which is usually present in architectures, and can
be tested quickly.

I notice that assembler programmers often return error status by setting the
carry-bit however, this lets them still return an error value *and* flag the
fact that an error has occurred all in one go.

There is no prior art, but I've often wished for a way to do this in 'C'.

Consider the advantages:

The error return is unambiguous.
The actual value that *does* get returned can be treated specially once it
is known that an error occurred.
The 'errno' system could probably be scrapped (I never liked it much anyway).

Trouble is - how to you express a test of the carry-bit? Really it will need
a syntactical addition to the language to be neat, and that is unlikely to
be acceptable.

I guess that an extension of the form:

	if (errval(foo = bar())) {
		<error code goes here>
		<could use 'foo' to get more details of the error>
	}

..would be most acceptable. 'errval' could be made a reserved word on new
systems (tests the carry bit), and implemented as a macro on older ones for
backward compatability:

# define	errval(x)	(x) < 0

..or

# define	errval(x)	(x) == -1

..or something like that, though some sort of cast will be reqd of course.

Just an idea.
Please contribute *arguments* for or against, not flames.
Steve

-----------------------------------------------+------------------------------
Steve Hosgood BSc,                             | Phone (+44) 792 295213
Image Processing and Systems Engineer,         | Fax (+44) 792 295532
Institute for Industrial Information Techology,| Telex 48149
Innovation Centre, University of Wales, +------+ JANET: iiit-sh@uk.ac.swan.pyr
Swansea SA2 8PP                         | UUCP: ..!ukc!cybaswan.UUCP!iiit-sh
----------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
            My views are not necessarily those of my employers!