I struggle to set up clang-format to allow short lines for such format,
ierr = fun(); CHKERRQ(ierr);
clang-format break the line, as result
ierr = fun();
CHKERRQ(ierr);
It is a solution to stop clang-fromat to break short lines? Or this is in principle wrong idea to format code like this. Any advice very appreciated.
EDIT: Following Guillaume answer
In fact, I have a slightly more complex problem, where errors codes of different types are returned by two libraries, in particular, PETSc and MoAB. Also, this system has own error codes, which need to be handled. All without compromising efficiency.
struct ErrorCheckerCode {
inline void operator<<(const MoFEMErrorCode err) {
if (PetscUnlikely(err)) {
// Handle & thorw PETSc/MoFEM error
}
return;
}
inline void
operator<<(const moab::ErrorCode err) {
if (PetscLikely(MB_SUCCESS != err)) {
// Handle & trow MOAB error
}
return;
}
static const char *fUNC;
static const char *fILE;
static int lINE;
};
struct ErrorCheckerFunction {
inline ErrorCheckerCode operator<<(const char *func) {
ErrorCheckerCode::fUNC = func;
return ErrorCheckerCode();
}
};
struct ErrorCheckerFile {
inline ErrorCheckerFunction operator<<(const char *file) {
ErrorCheckerCode::fILE = file;
return ErrorCheckerFunction();
}
};
struct ErrorCheckerLine {
inline ErrorCheckerFile operator<<(int line) {
ErrorCheckerCode::lINE = line;
return ErrorCheckerFile();
}
};
And definition follows this:
#define CHKERR \
ErrorCheckerLine() << __LINE__ << __FILE__ << PETSC_FUNCTION_NAME <<
So at the end I can handle errors like this
CHKERR fun_moab();
CHKERR fun_petsc();
CHKERR fun_mofem();
This implementation is essential, so it has to be done optimally, I wonder if that can be done in simpler, more efficient way. Criticism or advice is very welcome.
Note:
As a commend. It is funny how formatting of code triggers this type of developments.
I use clang-format a lot and I don't think it can achieve this kind of formatting.
I've encountered this pattern a lot in libraries using OpenGL and DirectX. You have a API with error codes or an error stack like in OpenGL and every function might fail or issue a warning. You want your code to be optimized in release and still have a debug mode to find preciselly where things went wrong in case you spot a bug.
Some libraries provide some kind of error callback that you can set and will effectively be called each time there is a relevent error.
In case you want something more customized or no error callback is provided, you can write a simple wrapper that does a systematic error checking and warnings logging.
With these solutions you can even implement some mechanism to activate the debugging at runtime.
Now, if you are writing the library or functions that return errors returned this way, you might want to include the debug mode directly in the library with the debug callback strategy.
Now, if you want to stick to the macro solution, you could do the following:
struct ErrorChecker
{
ErrorChecker& operator << (int ierr)
{
// Error checking code
return *this;
}
};
#define CHKERR ErrorChecker() <<
and then
CHKERR fun();
Related
I have inherited a (large) piece of code which has an error tracking mechanism where they pass in a boolean variable to all the methods they call and on errors at various stages of execution the method is stopped and returns, sometimes a default value.
Something like (BEFORE):
#include <iostream.h>
int fun1(int par1, bool& psuccess)
{
if(par1 == 42) return 43;
psuccess = false;
return -1;
}
int funtoo(int a, bool& psuccess)
{
int t = fun1(a, psuccess);
if(!psuccess)
{
return -1;
}
return 42;
}
void funthree(int b, bool& psuccess)
{
int h = funtoo(b, psuccess);
if(!psuccess)
{
return;
}
cout << "Yuppi" << b;
}
int main()
{
bool success = true;
funthree(43, success);
if(!success)
{
cout<< "Life, universe and everything have no meaning";
}
}
Please note, that this is a mixture of C and C++ code, exactly the way the project is in.
Now, comes a piece of C magic: "someone" somewhere defined a macro:
#define SUCCES_OR_RETURN if(!psuccess) return
And the program above becomes (AFTER):
#include<iostream.h>
int fun1(int par1, bool& psuccess)
{
if(par1 == 42) return 43;
psuccess = false;
return -1;
}
int funtoo(int a, bool& psuccess)
{
int t = fun1(a, psuccess);
SUCCES_OR_RETURN -1;
return 42;
}
void funthree(int b, bool& psuccess)
{
int h = funtoo(b, psuccess);
SUCCES_OR_RETURN ;
std::cout << "Yuppi" << b;
}
int main()
{
bool success = true;
funthree(43, success);
if(!success)
{
cout<< "Life, universe and everything have no meaning";
}
}
The question: I am wondering if there is a nicer way to handle this kind of error tracking or I have to live with this. I personally don't like the abuse of the C macro SUCCES_OR_RETURN ie. that once it is called with a parameter, and in other cases it is called without, feels like a real return statement, but I did not find any better solutions to this ancient design.
Please note that due to platform restrictions we have several restrictions, but regardless of it I am willing to hear opinions about these two:
throwing exceptions. The code is a mixture of C and C++ functions calling each other and the compiler sort of does not support throw (accepts in the syntax but does nothing with it, just a warning). This solution is sort of the standard way of solving this problem in a C++ environment.
C++11 features, this goes to a tiny embedded platform with an obscure and ancient "almost" C++ compiler which wasn't made to support the latest C++ features. However for future reference I am curios if there is anything C++11 offers.
template magic. The compiler has problems understanding complex templated issues, but again I am willing to see any solutions that you can come up with.
Edit
Also, as #BlueMoon suggested in the commend, creating a global variable is not working since at a very beginning of the function chain calling the success variable is a member variable of a class, and there are several objects of this class created, each of them needs to report its success status :)
There's a great breakdown of hybrid C and C++ error handling strategies here:
http://blog.sduto.it/2014/05/a-c-error-handling-style-that-plays.html
To quote the linked article, your options largely boil down to:
Return an error code from functions that can fail.
Provide a function like Windows's GetLastError() or OpenGL's glGetError() to retrieve the most recently occurring error code.
Provide a global (well, hopefully, thread-local) variable containing the most recent error, like POSIX's errno.
Provide a function to return more information about an error, possibly in conjunction with one of the above approaches, like POSIX's strerror function.
Allow the client to register a callback when an error occurs, like GLFW's glfwSetErrorCallback.
Use an OS-specific mechanism like structured exception handling.
Write errors out to a log file, stderr, or somewhere else.
Just assert() or somehow else terminate the program when an error occurs.
It seems like the author of the code you have inherited picked a rather strange way, passing a pointer to a boolean [sic] for the function to work with seems rather unusual.
The article has some great examples, personally I like this style:
libfoo_widget_container_t container = NULL;
libfoo_error_details_t error = NULL;
if (libfoo_create_widgets(12, &container, &error) != libfoo_success) {
printf("Error creating widgets: %s\n", libfoo_error_details_c_str(error));
libfoo_error_details_free(error);
abort(); // goodbye, cruel world!
}
Here you get a bit of everything, passed in pointer to error type, a comparison against a success constant (rather than 0|1, a painful dichotomy between C and the rest of the world!).
I don't think it would be too much of a push to say that your macro could rather better be implemented with a goto, in any case, if a function is calling SUCCES_OR_RETURN more than once, it might be a clue that the function is doing too much. Complex cleanup, or return might be a code smell, you can read more here http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2009/04/27/using-goto-for-error-handling-in-c/
I have seen this style of error handling before. I call it error-oblivious manual pseudo-exceptions.
The code flow is mostly error-oblivious: you can call 3 functions in a row with the same error flag, then look at the error flag to see if any errors have occurred.
The error flag acts as a pseudo-exception, where once set we start "skipping" over normal code flow, but this is done manually instead of automatically.
If you do something and do not care if an error occurs, you can just drop the error produced and proceed on.
The ICU library handles errors in a similar way.
A more C++1y way to do this while minimizing structural differences would be to modify code to return an expected object.
An expected<T, Err> is expected to be a T, and if something went wrong it is instead an Err type. This can be implemented as a hybrid of boost::variant and C++1y's std::optional. If you go and overload most arithmetic operations on expected< T, Err > + U to return expected< decltype( std::declval<T&>() + std::declval<U>(), Err > and did some careful auto, you could allow at least arithmetic expressions to keep their structure. You'd then check for the error after the fact.
On the other hand, if the error return values are predictable based on their type, you could create a type that when cast to a given type produced an error value. Modify functions returning void to return an error object of some kind while you are at it. And now every function can
if (berror) return error_flag_value{};
which at least gets rid of that strange ; or -1; issue.
If you want to go full C++, the answer would be changing the "invalid return values" for exceptions...
#include <iostream>
#include <exception>
using std::exception;
struct error : exception { const char* what() const throw() override { return "unsuccessful"; } };
int fun1(int par1) {
if( par1 == 42 ) return 43;
throw error();
}
int funtoo(int a) {
fun1(a);
return 42;
}
void funthree(int b) {
funtoo(b);
std::cout << "Yuppi " << b << "\n";
}
int main() {
try {
funthree(42);
} catch(exception& e) {
std::cout << "Life has no meaning, because " << e.what() << "\n";
}
}
This prints Yuppi 42 (if you change the call funthree(42) for funthree(43) it prints Life has no meaning, because unsuccessful...)
(live at coliru)
I'm working on a small C++11 application (an SDL2 game) and i'm having a hard time "porting" some of my object-oriented knowledge from PHP/Java to C++. For example, in order to create an elegant error logging approach, i would create a class with various adapters and centralize logging there. I already did that in C++, but i have no idea on how my classes should be using the Logger class.
In Java and PHP, i would use dependency injection, and put the Logger as a class member variable in them. But in C++, what's the proper way? I don't really think that going static would be nice.
Oh man.
To me logging is similar to date/time handling: the basic case is trivial, but anything more than trivial is extremely complicated: no middle ground.
Let me advise you to look into a general purpose logging library such as Pantheios or Boost.Log.
The reason why I advice for this approach as opposed to making "your own effort", is that I know first hand how the "logging situation" goes:
you start with a simple "write to file" or "write to screen"
then you need to also log to another device
then you want to filter out severity levels
then you want to send your logs via pipes
then you want to turn off logging
And it all becomes very, very difficult, and the logging classes start polluting your code.
So, like I said: based on my limited experience, I would encourage you to look into the suggested libraries.
Good luck.
Edit: Boost.Log examples
Just for completeness of the post (refer to page for details).
Trivial case:
#include <boost/log/trivial.hpp>
int main(int, char*[]) {
BOOST_LOG_TRIVIAL(trace) << "A trace severity message";
BOOST_LOG_TRIVIAL(debug) << "A debug severity message";
BOOST_LOG_TRIVIAL(info) << "An informational severity message";
BOOST_LOG_TRIVIAL(warning) << "A warning severity message";
BOOST_LOG_TRIVIAL(error) << "An error severity message";
BOOST_LOG_TRIVIAL(fatal) << "A fatal severity message";
return 0;
}
One approach would be to pass a reference to a logger object around function calls. However, logging is a sort of an orthogonal aspect to application logic, so that explicitly passing that logger and having it as a member quickly becomes a nuisance and only adds artificial complexity.
I prefer having one global logger in the application. Modules can create its own loggers as child loggers of the main logger forming a hierarchy (I think this is similar to Python logging module) and control its output sink and verbosity independently if necessary.
I always use something like this:
class Log
{
public:
Log()
: m_filename( "dafault.log" )
{}
// if you wanna give other names eventually...
Log( const std::string & p_filename )
: m_filename( p_filename )
{}
virtual ~Log()
{
// implement your writeToFile() with std::ofstream
writeToFile( m_filename, m_stream, true );
}
template< typename T >
Log & operator<<( const T & p_value )
{
m_stream << p_value;
return *this;
}
private:
std::string m_filename;
std::ostringstream m_stream;
};
So this way I am able to log like this:
Log() << "My message in the log with numbers " << 1 << 2 << 3 << " and so on...";
Log( "other.log" ) << "Log in another file eventually...";
My current approach is to use a kind of dependency injection, using C++ strengths instead of magic. It does not require on anything specific to C++11 (except that __thread which is an extension could be replaced by thread_local if you wished to be Standard).
class LoggerEngine {
public:
static LoggerEngine* Current() { return CurrentE; }
virtual bool isActive(Level) { return true; }
virtual void log(char const* function,
char const* file,
int line,
std::string message) = 0;
// cuz' decorators rock
LoggerEngine* previous() const { return _previous; }
protected:
LoggerEngine(): _previous(CurrentE) { CurrentE = this; }
~LoggerEngine() { CurrentE = _previous; }
private:
static __thread LoggerEngine* CurrentE;
LoggerEngine* const _previous;
}; // class LoggerEngine
// in some .cpp file:
__thread LoggerEngine* LoggerEngine::CurrentE = 0;
And then, provide macros (to capture function, file and line):
#define LOG(L_, Message_) \
do { if (LoggerEngine* e = LoggerEngine::Current() and e->isActive(L_)) { \
std::ostringstream _28974986589657165; \
_28974986589657165 << Message_; \
e->log(__func__, __FILE__, __LINE__, _28974986589657165.str()); \
}} while(0);
However it could certainly be made better by using shims instead, because even though it prevents any computation in case the level is not active it still requires formatting of the full message (and the necessary memory allocation) even if it is going to truncate the message anyway (for example because it uses fixed-size buffers) and does not easily allow customization of the formatting.
The combination of stacking engines (and popping them off automatically using RAII) with thread-local behavior is really pretty neat. Most code only ever see an interface, without having to thread it by (cool when you have 4/5 different engines), and any level of the stack can switch the engine to something more appropriate.
There is one caveat, as is, no logging occurs before a first Engine is defined. For this reason I've often thought of defaulting to writing to the console if no engine is setup but... I've mostly changed my style to avoid computation before main is called since I cannot dependency-inject during this phase (and it's awkward if an exception fires...)
Usage is like this:
void benchmark() {
LOG(INFO, "Hello, World!");
Timer t;
{
MySinkLogger const _; (void)_; // a logger with "isActive" always false
for (size_t i = 0; i != 10000; ++i) {
LOG(INFO, "Flood!");
}
}
LOG(INFO, "Elapsed: " << t.elapsed());
}
int main() {
MyFileLoggerEngine const _("somefile.log"); (void)_; // a file logger
benchmark();
}
And normally this could create a file "somefile.log" containing:
2013-10-03T18:38:04.645512 mylaptop INFO <test.cpp#42> Hello, World!
2013-10-03T18:38:04.865765 mylaptop INFO <test.cpp#47> Elapsed: 0.220213s
I'm wrapping the Windows API, and I wish to make error checking easy to use, and helpful. Currently, I have a global error object, with a function set to handle a new error. The set function takes four arguments: bool Error::set (const int code, const char * file, const char * const function, const int line); The function uses the file, function, and line arguments to display them in a nicely formatted message.
To ease the setting of errors, there is a macro #define setError() error.set (GetLastError(), __FILE__, __FUNCTION__, __LINE__); This way I'm able to use setError() at any time to respond to an error that an API function has set by adding it after I call that API function.
Unfortunately, this causes the code to look something like this:
SomeAPIFunction();
setError();
AnotherAPIFunction();
setError();
There is also a problem with constructors:
MyClass:MyClass()
: a (SomeAPIFunction), b (AnotherAPIFunction)
{
setError(); //what if both functions set an error?
}
As you can see, by using member initializer syntax, I'm actually limiting myself.
One way to fix this would be to wrap every API function:
int someAPIFunction()
{
int ret = SomeAPIFunction();
setError();
return ret;
}
The function portion of the error message would tell me which function originated the error. Of course, that has to be the worst possible way of dealing with this.
The solution, it seems, is to use variadic templates. The problem is, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be doing to get them working for this. I'd imagine the final code looks something like one of the following:
wrap<int, SomeAPIFunction (5)>();
wrap<int, SomeAPIFunction, 5>();
wrap<int, SomeAPIFunction> (5);
I've read things on beginning variadic templates, but they've all left me clueless of how to set up something like this. Could anyone point me in the right direction?
I found the following on a similar question:
#include <iostream>
template<void f(void)>
struct Wrap {
void operator()() const {
std::cout << "Pre call hook" << std::endl;
f();
}
};
namespace {
void test_func() {
std::cout << "Real function" << std::endl;
}
}
const Wrap<&test_func> wrapped_test_func = {};
int main() {
wrapped_test_func();
return 0;
}
The respondent noted that variadic templates would be a necessity to make this generic enough. It's a start, but I'm lost and grateful of any help on the matter.
I think you'll be able to make it work with this syntax:
wrap(&SomeAPIFunction, arg1, arg2);
The key is to let the compiler use type deduction to determine the template type parameters, since they get pretty messy in a hurry.
The code should look something like:
template<typename TRet, typename... TArgs>
TRet wrap( TRet(WINAPI *api)(TArgs...), TArgs... args )
{
return api(args...);
}
Naturally, you'll want to use a macro to hide the address-of-function operator, use stringizing to store the function name, and store the filename and line number also, passing all of that to the actual variadic function. You'll need variadic macros for that. In fact, could you do all of this just with variadic macros and no templates?
I use cout statements in my program for debugging purposes. I would like to make a function that works like it, or works like printf, but is sensitive to a global variable. If this global variable is true, then it will print to screen. If it is false, then it won't print anything. Is there already a function like this? If not, then how can it be made?
Something like this:
int myPrintf(const char* format, ...)
{
if (globalCheck == 0)
return 0
va_list vl;
va_start(vl, format);
auto ret = vprintf(format, vl);
va_end(vl);
return ret;
}
va_start and va_end take the arguments in the ... and encapsulate them in a va_list. with this va_list you can then the vprintf which is a variant of printf designed exactly for this need.
Side note - usually it is bad practice to use global variables. A better thing to do is to encapsulate it in a class like this -
class ConditionalPrinter {
public:
ConditionalPrinter() : m_enable(true) {}
void setOut(bool enable) { m_enable = enable; }
int myPrintf(const char* format, ...);
private:
bool m_enable;
}
and then to check m_enable instead of the global variable.
Usage of this looks like this:
ConditionalPrinter p;
p.myPrintf("hello %d", 1); // printed
p.setOut(false);
p.myPrintf("hello2 %d", 1); // not printed
....
Don't write it yourself. Doing it right is much harder then you think. Even harder when you need threads and efficiency. Use one of existing logging libraries like:
glog: http://code.google.com/p/google-glog/ (I prefer this - it is lightweight and do what it needs to do)
Log4cpp http://log4cpp.sourceforge.net/ (powerful and configuration compatible with popular java logging)
... add your favorite to this wiki
As someone else said, there are several good logging frameworks available. However, if you want to roll your own, the first thing to note is that cout isn't a function, it's a stream. The function is operator<<. What you can do is something like the following:
/* trace.h */
extern ostream debug;
void trace_init();
void trace_done();
/* trace.cpp */
#include "trace.h"
ostream debug(cout.rdbuf());
static ofstream null;
void trace_init()
{
null.open("/dev/null");
if(output_is_disabled) { // put whatever your condition is here
debug.rdbuf(null.rdbuf());
}
}
void trace_done()
{
null.close();
}
You might have to adjust a bit if you're on a platform without /dev/null. What this does is let you write
debug << "here's some output << endl;
and if you have the output enabled, it will write to cout. If not, it will write to /dev/null where you won't see anything.
For that matter, you could just set cout's rdbuf to somewhere where you won't see that output, but I would find that to be a really bad idea. Creating new streams gives you a lot more flexibility in controlling your output.
I'm working in C++ enviroment and:
a) We are forbidden to use exceptions
b) It is application/data server code that evaluates lot of requests of different kinds
I have simple class encapsulating result of server operation that is also used internally for lot of functions there.
class OpResult
{
.....
bool succeeded();
bool failed(); ....
... data error/result message ...
};
As I try to have all functions small and simple, lot of blocks like this are arising:
....
OpResult result = some_(mostly check)function(....);
if (result.failed())
return result;
...
The question is, is it bad practise to make macro looking like this and use it everywhere?
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED(call) \
{ \
OpResult result = call; \
if (result.failed()) \
return result; \
}
I understand that someone can call it nasty, but is there a better way?
What other way of handling results and avoiding lot of bloat code would you suggest?
It's a trade off. You are trading code size for obfuscation of the logic. I prefer to preserve the logic as visible.
I dislike macros of this type because they break Intellisense (on Windows), and debugging of the program logic. Try putting a breakpoint on all 10 return statements in your function - not the check, just the return. Try stepping through the code that's in the macro.
The worst thing about this is that once you accept this it's hard to argue against the 30-line monster macros that some programmers LOVE to use for commonly-seen mini-tasks because they 'clarify things'. I've seen code where different exception types were handled this way by four cascading macros, resulting in 4 lines in the source file, with the macros actually expanding to > 100 real lines. Now, are you reducing code bloat? No. It's impossible to tell easily with macros.
Another general argument against macros, even if not obviously applicable here, is the ability to nest them with hard to decipher results, or to pass in arguments that result in weird but compilable arguments e.g. the use of ++x in a macros that uses the argument twice. I always know where I stand with the code, and I can't say that about a macro.
EDIT: One comment I should add is that if you really do repeat this error check logic over and over, perhaps there are refactoring opportunities in the code. Not a guarantee but a better way of code bloat reduction if it does apply. Look for repeated sequences of calls and encapsulate common sequences in their own function, rather than addressing how each call is handled in isolation.
Actually, I prefer slightly other solution. The thing is that the result of inner call is not necessarily a valid result of an outer call. For example, inner failure may be "file not found", but the outer one "configuration not available". Therefore my suggestion is to recreate the OpResult (potentially packing the "inner" OpResult into it for better debugging). This all goes to the direction of "InnerException" in .NET.
technically, in my case the macro looks like
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED(call, outerresult) \
{ \
OpResult innerresult = call; \
if (innerresult.failed()) \
{ \
outerresult.setInner(innerresult); \
return outerresult; \
} \
}
This solution requires however some memory management etc.
Some purist argue that having no explicit returns hinders the readability of the code. In my opinion however having explicit RETURN as a part of the macro name is enough to prevent confusion for any skilled and attentive developer.
My opinion is that such macros don't obfuscate the program logic, but on the contrary make it cleaner. With such a macro, you declare your intent in a clear and concise way, while the other way seems to be overly verbose and therefore error-prone. Making the maintainers parse in mind the same construct OpResult r = call(); if (r.failed) return r is wasting of their time.
An alternative approach without early returns is applying to each code line the pattern like CHECKEDCALL(r, call) with #define CHECKEDCALL(r, call) do { if (r.succeeded) r = call; } while(false). This is in my eyes much much worse and definitely error-prone, as people tend to forget about adding CHECKEDCALL() when adding more code.
Having a popular need to do checked returns (or everything) with macros seems to be a slight sign of missing language feature for me.
As long as the macro definition sits in an implementation file and is undefined as soon as unnecessary, I wouldn't be horrified.
// something.cpp
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED() /* ... */
void f1 () { /* ... */ }
void f2 () { /* ... */ }
#undef RETURN_IF_FAILED
However, I would only use this after having ruled out all non-macro solutions.
After 10 years, I'm going to answer my own question to my satisfaction, if only I had a time machine ...
I encountered a similar situation many times in new projects. Even when exceptions were allowed, I don't want to always use them for "normal fails".
I eventually discovered a way to write these kind of statements.
For generic Result that includes message, I use this:
class Result
{
public:
enum class Enum
{
Undefined,
Meaningless,
Success,
Fail,
};
static constexpr Enum Undefined = Enum::Undefined;
static constexpr Enum Meaningless = Enum::Meaningless;
static constexpr Enum Success = Enum::Success;
static constexpr Enum Fail = Enum::Fail;
Result() = default;
Result(Enum result) : result(result) {}
Result(const LocalisedString& message) : result(Fail), message(message) {}
Result(Enum result, const LocalisedString& message) : result(result), message(message) {}
bool isDefined() const { return this->result != Undefined; }
bool succeeded() const { assert(this->result != Undefined); return this->result == Success; }
bool isMeaningless() const { assert(this->result != Undefined); return this->result == Enum::Meaningless; }
bool failed() const { assert(this->result != Undefined); return this->result == Fail; }
const LocalisedString& getMessage() const { return this->message; }
private:
Enum result = Undefined;
LocalisedString message;
};
And then, I have a special helper class in this form, (similar for other return types)
class Failed
{
public:
Failed(Result&& result) : result(std::move(result)) {}
explicit operator bool() const { return this->result.failed(); }
operator Result() { return this->result; }
const LocalisedString& getMessage() const { return this->result.getMessage(); }
Result result;
};
When these are combined, I can write code like this:
if (Failed result = trySomething())
showError(result.getMessage().str());
Isn't it beutiful?
I agree with Steve's POV.
I first thought, at least reduce the macro to
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED(result) if(result.failed()) return result;
but then it occurred to me this already is a one-liner, so there really is little benefit in the macro.
I think, basically, you have to make a trade off between write-ability and readability. The macro is definitely easier to write. It is, however, an open question whether it is also is easier to read. The latter is quite a subjective judgment to make. Still, using macros objectively does obfuscate code.
Ultimately, the underlying problem is that you must not use exceptions. You haven't said what the reasons for that decision are, but I surely hope they are worth the problems this causes.
Could be done with C++0x lambdas.
template<typename F> inline OpResult if_failed(OpResult a, F f) {
if (a.failed())
return a;
else
return f();
};
OpResult something() {
int mah_var = 0;
OpResult x = do_something();
return if_failed(x, [&]() -> OpResult {
std::cout << mah_var;
return f;
});
};
If you're clever and desperate, you could make the same kind of trick work with regular objects.
In my opinion, hiding a return statement in a macro is a bad idea. The 'code obfucation' (I like that term..! ) reaches the highest possible level. My usual solution to such problems is to aggregate the function execution at one place and control the result in the following manner (assuming you have 5 nullary functions):
std::array<std::function<OpResult ()>, 5> tFunctions = {
f1, f2, f3, f4, f5
};
auto tFirstFailed = std::find_if(tFunctions.begin(), tFunctions.end(),
[] (std::function<OpResult ()>& pFunc) -> bool {
return pFunc().failed();
});
if (tFirstFailed != tFunctions.end()) {
// tFirstFailed is the first function which failed...
}
Is there any information in result which is actually useful if the call fails?
If not, then
static const error_result = something;
if ( call().failed() ) return error_result;
would suffice.