Re: Handling X errors using exception handlers

[Alexandre Julliard]

Lionel Ulmer  writes:
> The only problems I could see with this approach is that :
> - it cannot 'expect' more than one kind of error at the same time

I was thinking you could use a special value as a "wildcard" for the
error codes, in which case it wouldn't be tested for a match.
> - I am not sure that the parameters thing are really a good idea. Are we
> sure that the error code are the same on all X servers ? Are they
> standardized ?

They are part of the X spec AFAICT, so yes it should be pretty much
standard.

Handling X errors using exception handlers

[Lionel Ulmer]

> > - it cannot 'expect' more than one kind of error at the same time
>
> I was thinking you could use a special value as a "wildcard" for the
> error codes, in which case it wouldn't be tested for a match.

Hmmm, yes, nice and clean :-)
> > - I am not sure that the parameters thing are really a good idea. Are we
> > sure that the error code are the same on all X servers ? Are they
> > standardized ?
>
> They are part of the X spec AFAICT, so yes it should be pretty much
> standard.

Yeah, now that I think of it, it should be part of the spec, except for the
extension errors... But as we store the 'error base', it should work also
for these cases.

Do you plan to implement it or should I do it (be warned though that I can
work on it only if the weather is bad this week-end :-) ).

Lionel