From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 2/4] Introduce a C++ wrapper for the kvm
 APIs
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:41:34 +0200
Message-ID: <20101124174134.GK20014@redhat.com>
References: <1290595933-13122-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
 <1290595933-13122-3-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
 <50DD1E97-0ECD-41E6-B6F8-1D78AA4A4876@suse.de>
 <4CED2416.1040102@codemonkey.ws>
 <20101124154006.GE15111@redhat.com>
 <4CED344B.3030000@codemonkey.ws>
 <20101124161204.GF15111@redhat.com>
 <4CED3FE5.4000801@codemonkey.ws>
 <20101124173345.GI20014@redhat.com>
 <4CED4DDB.707@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61329 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754131Ab0KXRln (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:41:43 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CED4DDB.707@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 07:39:39PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/24/2010 07:33 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>  But I don't see the point.  If you look at my repository, there's
> >The point is that C++ is ugly language. The short code Avi sent remind
> >me perl (aka line noise). It is almost impossible to parse it into
> >what code it actually does. Most symbols are there for C++ syntax not
> >functionality.
> 
> No.  They're there for error handling.  A C++ wrapper, doesn't add
> any functionality, so you can say that all of the lines of codes do
> nothing and are just syntax.  But they do allow you to pair init and
> uninit (in the constructor and destructor).  When you use the
> wrapper (as opposed to the bare C interface) you get the value by
> not having to code long error handling sequences (with a high
> probability of getting them wrong and never finding out in testing).
> 
So how errors are handled there? By throwing exceptions? Sorry this is
not error "handling".

--
			Gleb.