Re: the ridiculously large granularity of "errno" (was Red Hat

[Alan Curry]

Alexander Viro writes the following:
>
>On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Alan Curry wrote:
>
>> To which I say int sys_strerror(int,char*,size_t). "But what about i18n" you
>> ask? I'd rather have a correct error message that I don't understand than one
>> which I understand but is a lie.
>
>Ever heard about portability? As in, somebody brings a program that
>correctly handles -ENOENT on rename(). It had never heard about your

OK, obviously it is undesirable to break `if(errno==ENOENT)' in cases where
the author has taken the necessary precautions to insure he's actually caught
the right error. A second error channel would have to be added to carry more
detailed information. And such an interface would take years to reach
widespread use, even ignoring the time that would inevitably be wasted by
squabbling over minute details. Nevermind