I have some psuedocode for a function to display a value and get a value
int getValue(){
int value;
// open file
// read line into "value"
if(error occurs){
// if file doesn't open or line was not an integer
/* Normally I would return something such as -1
but -1 in this case would be a valid value*/
value = ?
}
return value;
}
void displayValue(){
int value = getValue();
if(value is valid)
display(value);
}
As described in the code above, I would like to return that there was an error and let displayValue know that there was an error. But i want to accept negative,positive, and 0 from getValue.
Is there a better way to go about this? Does anyone have any advice?
Throw an exception. One of the advantages of C++ over C is that, when you have an error, you don't have to smuggle error codes out of the function, you can just throw an exception. If it's a truly exceptional case, most of the time the caller won't have anything useful to do with it anyway, so forcing them to check for it manually, then pass the error up the call chain is pointless. If they do know what to do with it, they can catch it.
This solution is also more composable. Imagine a scenario where A returns int, B calls A and returns a std::string based on it, and C calls B and returns class Foo based on that. If A has an exceptional condition that requires it to return an error, you can either:
Come up with some way to smuggle the error out of A as an int (or std::optional<int> or std::pair<bool, int> or whatever), then check for and convert that smuggled error to a different smuggled error for B, then check for and convert that to yet another smuggled error for C, then the caller of C still needs to check for that smuggled error and all three layers have to pay the price of the checks every time, even when all three layers succeeded, or...
You throw an exception in A, neither B nor C have anything useful to do with it (so they don't write any additional code at all), and the caller of C can choose to catch the exception and produce a friendlier error message if they so choose.
On modern architectures, the cost in the success case for #2 should be pretty negligible; the failure case might be more costly than the "check at every level case", but for something like "file doesn't exist" or "file contains corrupt data", it hardly matters if performance suffers, since you're probably about to exit the program (so speed doesn't count) or pop a dialog the user needs to respond to (the user is slower than the computer by many orders of magnitude).
There are several error handling approaches in C++:
The traditional way popular in C API's (also used by std::string algorithms) is to reserve at least one value as "invalid", which when returned would signal that there was an error, or that the value represents "no result". In case of error, the C API's would use the global errno to inform what error happened.
One of the features C++ introduced over the C language is exceptions. You can simply throw when error occurs. This is most appropriate for unexpected errors or pre/post-condition violations, rather than "no result exists" type situations.
Yet another way is to return both the value, and information about whether the result is valid. Old fashioned approach might be to return a pair of integer and boolean (or a named class that achieves the same). Alternatively, either value or error state can written into object passed through indirection. std::optional has been introduced into the standard library just for this kind of situation an is a great way of representing lack of result.
Latter approach can be further extended to not only return a boolean, but actual information about the error in similar way to the way exceptions do. The error information can also be wrapped with the value in a "variant" type so that they can share the space, as only one of them can exist at any time. This approach is similar to Maybe type in Haskell. There is a proposal to introduce a template for this purpose into the standard library.
Each of these approaches have their benefits and drawbacks. Choose one that is appropriate for your use case.
One option is to throw an exception when an error occurs. It's highly dependent on the rest of your project. Are Exceptions used all around ? Personally, I prefer more conventional old-school approaches. Mostly because people will start throwing exception everywhere, where it's not really exceptional and then it makes debugging much harder as the debugger keeps stopping for non-exceptional situations.
Another option is to return a pair std::pair<bool, int>. Some people love it, some people hate it.
My preference would be bool attemptGetValue(int& outValue). You return false if there's an error, in which case you don't touch outValue. Your return true otherwise and modify outValue
You can also use std::optional, but old timers might not be familiar wiht it.
Other than throwing an exception, returning a std::optional, or a std::pair, there is a precedent here: std::string::npos is normally set to a particularly large std::string::size_type value, normally -1 (wrapped around of course) and is used by some std::string functions to indicate a failure.
If you're willing to give up one legitimate return value then you could do something similar in your case. In reality though, typical (perhaps all) strings will be significantly smaller than npos; if that's not the case for you then perhaps one of the alternatives already mentioned would be better.
Suppose I need to get value from config.
What function is more correctly?
int ret;
string value = config.getStringValue(string name, &ret);
or
string value;
int ret = config.getValue(string name, &value);
or maybe
string value = config.getStringValue(string name);
int ret = config.getResultCode();
And what var name for result code is more correctly: ret, error, etc?
Update:
Additional to #computerfreaker's comment: there is no exceptions in same platforms like bada
Neither solutions you proposed are the correct C++ way. What you provided is just C. In C++, use exceptions
The way you think is: "I have to send some status code to the caller"... this is the way you usually handle errors in C, but since there are exceptions in C++, it's much cleaner and wiser to do:
#include <exception>
std::string getValue() {
if (...)
throw std::exception("Unable to retrieve value.");
}
and caller would do:
try {
std::string val = getValue();
} catch (std::exception& e) { ... }
Just remember the rule: Throw by value, catch by reference.
Regarding "exceptions are meant for handling exceptional states" - it's true. Exceptions should be used in situations when something unexpected / exceptional happens. If function getValue relies on the fact that the value exists and it can be retrieved, then the situation when your code for some reason fails to retrieve this value is exceptional and thus suitable for handling it using exceptions.
C++ offers several ways of reporting errors from functions which return a value:
Throw an exception. This should be done when the cause of the error is with some external resource and does not normally happen. Perfect example: out of memory.
Return a special value to indicate failure, and follow this convention at the call site. For example, return "" for errors and have callers check for "".
Use std::optional or a similar technique. That's an advanced version of your first example. The basic idea is to return a special object which contains the original object and a boolean flag indicating success. The special object is used with the rule that the original object may only be accessed if the boolean flag indicates success. Other names of this idiom which I've heard are "Fallible" and "Box". This solution and the previous one are good candidates when error cases are expected and frequent -- usually a perfect match for user input.
Abort the program with assert. This is a good solution if an error indicates that your own code is wrong. In this case, the best thing to do is usually terminating the program as quickly as possible before it can do any harm.
Use global error state and have callers check it. That's your third example. C code fancies doing that a lot with errno. In C++, however, this is typically not considered a good solution. It's bad for the same reasons that any kind of global variable is typically bad.
Do not return the value itself but make it an out parameter with a reference. Return an error flag instead. That's your second example. It is better than the previous approach but still very C-like. I would not recommend doing it because it will force callers to name every received value.
In writing a function to convert between strings of different encodings (e.g. from UTF-8 to UTF-16), what would be the best way to handle errors (e.g. invalid input UTF-8 byte sequence)? Throwing an exception or returning an error code (even a bool)?
// Throws a C++ exception on error.
std::wstring ConvertFromUtf8ToUtf16(const std::string& utf8);
// Returns true on success, false on error.
bool ConvertFromUtf8ToUtf16(std::wstring& utf16, const std::string& utf8);
Using exceptions, it would be possible to do chained function calls (when the function return value is used as input for other functions/methods).
But I'm not sure that using exceptions in this case is good; I was thinking of what Eric Lippert in his quality blog post calls vexing exceptions (and related Int32.Parse()/TryParse() example).
For example, if exceptions are used, the caller should be forced to wrap the function call in try/catch blocks to check the case of invalid UTF-8 input:
try
{
wstring utf16 = ConvertFromUtf8ToUtf16(utf8);
}
catch(const Utf8ConversionException& e)
{
// Bad UTF-8 byte sequence
...
}
Which seems not ideal to me.
Maybe the best thing to do is to just provide both overloads (implementing the conversion code in the non-throwing overload, and in the throwing overload just call the non-throwing version, and in case of error return code throw an exception)?
One guideline is to consider what will happen if users ignore or don't know that they should check your returned error code.
If the code could theoretically continue in the face of an error, returning an error could be considered reasonable. And as you mention, the code looks cleaner.
If ignoring the error would likely lead to Very Bad Behavior later, it's probably a better idea to throw the exception.
A third potential choice which somewhat balances the terseness of error codes and forcing the programmer to be aware of potential errors is to make the function require a reference to the error code. This will also work well in exported libraries and with (mostly older) compilers that don't handle exceptions efficiently.
StringConversionResult result; // Could be a "success" bool
wstring utf16 = ConvertFromUtf8ToUtf16(utf8, result);
If this function is exported from a library, use return code. Throwing exception from exported function may crash the program in the case, when library and client are built with different C/C++ runtime libraries. Generally, this is undefined behavior.
For internal use, I believe, exception is a better choice. The case you are talking about, when caller doesn't use catch block, crashes the program immediately (unhandled exception). This is better, then continuing program execution with undefined results in some future point.
There are only three choices. The first is "Replace all failures by error codepoint"- the Unicode Standard provides for a couple of replacement codepoints. This is fine in some scenarios. The second is to throw an exception. The third is to provide an error function object, to be called on failure. For example,
bool fail = false;
std::u16string str = ConvertFromUTF8ToUTF16(utf8, [&] {
return u16"default";
// or
throw std::runtime_error("fail");
// or
fail = true;
});
The point is that in no scenario do you depend on the user to check for failure- if he does nothing, then either his function does not continue, the compiler cries, or it's OK for the function to continue.
Returning an error code is not an option- this is plain hideously error prone.
I am exploring the possibility of creating a Clutter binding for the D
language ( http://d-programming-language.org/) and have started by
trying some simple tests using dynamic loading of libclutter. I've run
into a problem that might derive from the GObject inheritance
system, and I'd appreciate any help getting it figured out. Here's the
rundown: using clutter_stage_get_default returns a ClutterActor* which
I can use with the clutter_actor_* methods. But I always get errors or
segfaults when I use the clutter_stage_* or clutter_container_*
methods. Here's my test code: http://pastebin.com/nVrQ69dU
At the clutter_container_add_actor call on line 56, I get the following error:
(<unknown>:11976): Clutter-CRITICAL **: clutter_container_add_actor:
assertion 'CLUTTER_IS_CONTAINER (container)' failed
In example code, I have noticed the CLUTTER_STAGE and
CLUTTER_CONTAINER macros for casting (these obviously are not
available to me), but as far as I could tell, they simply performed
some checks, then did a plain C cast. If this is incorrect, and some
Gobject type magic needs to be done on the stage pointer before
casting, please let me know. Binding and using the
clutter_stage_set_title or clutter_stage_set_color with cast(ClutterStage*)stage resulted in
segmentation faults, presumably the same issue.
EDIT: Here's a stripped down example with no external dependencies (if you're not on Linux, you'll need to replace the dl calls with your OS's equivalents). This code fails with a segfault, which according to GDB and Valgrind, is in clutter_stage_set_title (in /usr/lib/libclutter-glx-1.0.so.0.600.14)
The problem is that you don't declare the C functions as extern(C). Because of that dmd thinks you're calling a D function and uses the wrong calling convention. One way to do this correctly is like this:
alias extern(C) void function(void*, const char*) setTitleFunc;
auto clutter_stage_set_title = getSym!(setTitleFunc)("clutter_stage_set_title");
I'm not sure how to make it work without the alias though. DMD refuses to parse anything with extern(C) in a template parameter:
auto clutter_stage_set_title = getSym!(extern(C) void function(void*, const char*))("clutter_stage_set_title"); //Doesn't work
BTW: Your cstring function is dangerous: It returns a char* indicating that the string can be modified, but this is not always true: If you pass a string literal to toStringz it might not allocate new memory but return the pointer of the original string instead. String literals are in readonly memory, so this could lead to problems.
You could just adjust your function types to match the C Types (const gchar* in C --> const char* in D) and use toStringz directly.
structs in D cannot inherit from each other and casting struct pointers will return null unless there's a intermediate cast to void* (unlike a C cast) I got refuted here
you're better off adding another abstraction layer using handle-wrapping structs and emulating the checks from those macros when casting
but what happens if you do
clutter_container_add_actor(cast(ClutterContainer*)(cast(void*)stage), textbox);
(casting to void* first and then to ClutterContainer*)
Very often you have a function, which for given arguments can't generate valid result or it can't perform some tasks. Apart from exceptions, which are not so commonly used in C/C++ world, there are basically two schools of reporting invalid results.
First approach mixes valid returns with a value which does not belong to codomain of a function (very often -1) and indicates an error
int foo(int arg) {
if (everything fine)
return some_value;
return -1; //on failure
}
The scond approach is to return a function status and pass the result within a reference
bool foo(int arg, int & result) {
if (everything fine) {
result = some_value;
return true;
}
return false; //on failure
}
Which way do you prefer and why. Does additional parameter in the second method bring notable performance overhead?
Don't ignore exceptions, for exceptional and unexpected errors.
However, just answering your points, the question is ultimately subjective. The key issue is to consider what will be easier for your consumers to work with, whilst quietly nudging them to remember to check error conditions. In my opinion, this is nearly always the "Return a status code, and put the value in a separate reference", but this is entirely one mans personal view. My arguments for doing this...
If you choose to return a mixed value, then you've overloaded the concept of return to mean "Either a useful value or an error code". Overloading a single semantic concept can lead to confusion as to the right thing to do with it.
You often cannot easily find values in the function's codomain to co-opt as error codes, and so need to mix and match the two styles of error reporting within a single API.
There's almost no chance that, if they forget to check the error status, they'll use an error code as if it were actually a useful result. One can return an error code, and stick some null like concept in the return reference that will explode easily when used. If one uses the error/value mixed return model, it's very easy to pass it into another function in which the error part of the co-domain is valid input (but meaningless in the context).
Arguments for returning the mixed error code/value model might be simplicity - no extra variables floating around, for one. But to me, the dangers are worse than the limited gains - one can easily forget to check the error codes. This is one argument for exceptions - you literally can't forget to handle them (your program will flame out if you don't).
boost optional is a brilliant technique. An example will assist.
Say you have a function that returns an double and you want to signify
an error when that cannot be calculated.
double divide(double a, double b){
return a / b;
}
what to do in the case where b is 0;
boost::optional<double> divide(double a, double b){
if ( b != 0){
return a / b;
}else{
return boost::none;
}
}
use it like below.
boost::optional<double> v = divide(a, b);
if(v){
// Note the dereference operator
cout << *v << endl;
}else{
cout << "divide by zero" << endl;
}
The idea of special return values completely falls apart when you start using templates. Consider:
template <typename T>
T f( const T & t ) {
if ( SomeFunc( t ) ) {
return t;
}
else { // error path
return ???; // what can we return?
}
}
There is no obvious special value we can return in this case, so throwing an exception is really the only way. Returning boolean types which must be checked and passing the really interesting values back by reference leads to an horrendous coding style..
Quite a few books, etc., strongly advise the second, so you're not mixing roles and forcing the return value to carry two entirely unrelated pieces of information.
While I sympathize with that notion, I find that the first typically works out better in practice. For one obvious point, in the first case you can chain the assignment to an arbitrary number of recipients, but in the second if you need/want to assign the result to more than one recipient, you have to do the call, then separately do a second assignment. I.e.,
account1.rate = account2.rate = current_rate();
vs.:
set_current_rate(account1.rate);
account2.rate = account1.rate;
or:
set_current_rate(account1.rate);
set_current_rate(account2.rate);
The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof. Microsoft's COM functions (for one example) chose the latter form exclusively. IMO, it is due largely to this decision alone that essentially all code that uses the native COM API directly is ugly and nearly unreadable. The concepts involved aren't particularly difficult, but the style of the interface turns what should be simple code into an almost unreadable mess in virtually every case.
Exception handling is usually a better way to handle things than either one though. It has three specific effects, all of which are very good. First, it keeps the mainstream logic from being polluted with error handling, so the real intent of the code is much more clear. Second, it decouples error handling from error detection. Code that detects a problem is often in a poor position to handle that error very well. Third, unlike either form of returning an error, it is essentially impossible to simply ignore an exception being thrown. With return codes, there's a nearly constant temptation (to which programmers succumb all too often) to simply assume success, and make no attempt at even catching a problem -- especially since the programmer doesn't really know how to handle the error at that part of the code anyway, and is well aware that even if he catches it and returns an error code from his function, chances are good that it will be ignored anyway.
In C, one of the more common techniques I have seen is that a function returns zero on success, non-zero (typically an error code) on error. If the function needs to pass data back to the caller, it does so through a pointer passed as a function argument. This can also make functions that return multiple pieces of data back to the user more straightforward to use (vs. return some data through a return value and some through a pointer).
Another C technique I see is to return 0 on success and on error, -1 is returned and errno is set to indicate the error.
The techniques you presented each have pros and cons, so deciding which one is "best" will always be (at least partially) subjective. However, I can say this without reservations: the technique that is best is the technique that is consistent throughout your entire program. Using different styles of error reporting code in different parts of a program can quickly become a maintenance and debugging nightmare.
There shouldn't be much, if any, performance difference between the two. The choice depends on the particular use. You cannot use the first if there is no appropriate invalid value.
If using C++, there are many more possibilities than these two, including exceptions and using something like boost::optional as a return value.
C traditionally used the first approach of coding magic values in valid results - which is why you get fun stuff like strcmp() returning false (=0) on a match.
Newer safe versions of a lot of the standard library functions use the second approach - explicitly returning a status.
And no exceptions aren't an alternative here. Exceptions are for exceptional circumstances which the code might not be able to deal with - you don't raise an exception for a string not matching in strcmp()
It's not always possible, but regardless of which error reporting method you use, the best practice is to, whenever possible, design a function so that it does not have failure cases, and when that's not possible, minimize the possible error conditions. Some examples:
Instead of passing a filename deep down through many function calls, you could design your program so that the caller opens the file and passes the FILE * or file descriptor. This eliminates checks for "failed to open file" and report it to the caller at each step.
If there's an inexpensive way to check (or find an upper bound) for the amount of memory a function will need to allocate for the data structures it will build and return, provide a function to return that amount and have the caller allocate the memory. In some cases this may allow the caller to simply use the stack, greatly reducing memory fragmentation and avoiding locks in malloc.
When a function is performing a task for which your implementation may require large working space, ask if there's an alternate (possibly slower) algorithm with O(1) space requirements. If performance is non-critical, simply use the O(1) space algorithm. Otherwise, implement a fallback case to use it if allocation fails.
These are just a few ideas, but applying the same sort of principle all over can really reduce the number of error conditions you have to deal with and propagate up through multiple call levels.
For C++ I favour a templated solution that prevents the fugliness of out parameters and the fugliness of "magic numbers" in combined answers/return codes. I've expounded upon this while answering another question. Take a look.
For C, I find the fugly out parameters less offensive than fugly "magic numbers".
You missed a method: Returning a failure indication and requiring an additional call to get the details of the error.
There's a lot to be said for this.
Example:
int count;
if (!TryParse("12x3", &count))
DisplayError(GetLastError());
edit
This answer has generated quite a bit of controversy and downvoting. To be frank, I am entirely unconvinced by the dissenting arguments. Separating whether a call succeeded from why it failed has proven to be a really good idea. Combining the two forces you into the following pattern:
HKEY key;
long errcode = RegOpenKey(HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, NULL, &key);
if (errcode != ERROR_SUCCESS)
return DisplayError(errcode);
Contrast this with:
HKEY key;
if (!RegOpenKey(HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, NULL, &key))
return DisplayError(GetLastError());
(The GetLastError version is consistent with how the Windows API generally works, but the version that returns the code directly is how it actually works, due to the registry API not following that standard.)
In any case, I would suggest that the error-returning pattern makes it all too easy to forget about why the function failed, leading to code such as:
HKEY key;
if (RegOpenKey(HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, NULL, &key) != ERROR_SUCCESS)
return DisplayGenericError();
edit
Looking at R.'s request, I've found a scenario where it can actually be satisfied.
For a general-purpose C-style API, such as the Windows SDK functions I've used in my examples, there is no non-global context for error codes to rest in. Instead, we have no good alternative to using a global TLV that can be checked after failure.
However, if we expand the topic to include methods on a class, the situation is different. It's perfectly reasonable, given a variable reg that is an instance of the RegistryKey class, for a call to reg.Open to return false, requiring us to then call reg.ErrorCode to retrieve the details.
I believe this satisfies R.'s request that the error code be part of a context, since the instance provides the context. If, instead of a RegistryKey instance, we called a static Open method on RegistryKeyHelper, then the retrieval of the error code on failure would likewise have to be static, which means it would have to be a TLV, albeit not an entirely global one. The class, as opposed to an instance, would be the context.
In both of these cases, object orientation provides a natural context for storing error codes. Having said that, if there is no natural context, I would still insist on a global, as opposed to trying to force the caller to pass in an output parameter or some other artificial context, or returning the error code directly.
I think there is no right answer to this. It depends on your needs, on the overall application design etc. I personally use the first approach though.
I think a good compiler would generate almost the same code, with the same speed. It's a personal preference. I would go on first.
If you have references and the bool type, you must be using C++. In which case, throw an exception. That's what they're for. For a general desktop environment, there's no reason to use error codes. I have seen arguments against exceptions in some environments, like dodgy language/process interop or tight embedded environment. Assuming neither of those, always, always throw an exception.
Well, the first one will compile either in C and C++, so to do portable code it's fine.
The second one, although it's more "human readable" you never know truthfully which value is the program returning, specifying it like in the first case gives you more control, that's what I think.
I prefer using return code for the type of error occured. This helps the caller of the API to take appropriate error handling steps.
Consider GLIB APIs which most often return the error code and the error message along with the boolean return value.
Thus when you get a negative return to a function call, you can check the context from the GError variable.
A failure in the second approach specified by you will not help the caller to take correct actions. Its different case when your documentation is very clear. But in other cases it will be a headache to find how to use the API call.
For a "try" function, where some "normal" type of failure is reasonably expected, how about accepting either a default return value or a pointer to a function which accepts certain parameters related to the failure and returns such a value of the expected type?
Apart from doing it the correct way, which of these two stupid ways do you prefer?
I prefer to use exceptions when I'm using C++ and need to throw an error, and in general, when I don't want to force all calling functions to detect and handle the error. I prefer to use stupid special values when there is only one possible error condition, and that condition means there is no way the caller can proceed, and every conceivable caller will be able to handle it.. which is rare. I prefer to use stupid out parameters when modifying old code and for some reason I can change the number of parameters but not change the return type or identify a special value or throw an exception, which so far has been never.
Does additional parameter in the
second method bring notable
performance overhead?
Yes! Additional parameters cause your 'puter to slow down by at least 0 nanoseconds. Best to use the "no-overhead" keyword on that parameter. It's a GCC extension __attribute__((no-overhead)), so YMMV.