Re: encapsulating directory operations

On Sun, 2025-06-08 at 17:06 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 08.06.2025 um 16:52 schrieb wij:
 

I know a bit of the development of std::filesystem. The view of mere 'standard'
disregards fact and uses more the 'assertion' criticized.

 
Another statement without arguments.

My primary interest of programming is on the theory. From your presented
wording, I don't think you can conduct a logical discussion (it seems you
continue to ask for logical proof).

"dont' need" is illusion, errors are always there, mostly ignored and encouraged
to ignore by simplification.

 
If the code is written to be exception-safe, i.e. it uses
RAII throughout, then this is easily possible.
 

C has not hard coded what 'exception' should be. E.g. C can also set an error
object and let interested code to handle it in many ways, what's left is impl.
issues.

 
Are you serious? The fact that the exception type is transported along
with the exception itself makes things really convenient. This way, the
stack can be unrolled until the correct exception handler is found.
 

But, I think the 'throw' mechanism (not std::exception) is good, like many
others. 'throw' is more like a soft assert failure, which is no error handling.

 
Totally different - asserts are handled at debug-time.
Based on this statement, you didn't understand exceptions correctly.

It seems your whole idea (and 'fact') is based on C++'s propaganda.

Most of the related discussion have happened in the past I am lazy to repeat.
Just look at the fact, C++ is half-dying and accelerating (IMO, not because
of bad but of trillions ways doing it wrong).
You are repeating past errors and think your understanding and coding is
orthodox enough to be factually correct.