[yrashk]

Addresses a concern in #262

---

Please note that this the first draft/prototype and I have no expertise with Windows (nor did I check this on Windows yet). Any advice appreciated.

[yrashk]

ping @igaztanaga – bumping this PR to see if there's interest in this change

[yrashk]

Hi @igaztanaga – wondering if you're interested in this direction? Thank you!

[igaztanaga]

Adding std::error to a few functions is not a direction I would like to follow, it would make the library design inconsistent and half-baked.

Changing the general error handling of the library (or supporting exceptions+error codes) is a big task. The C++ standard uses exceptions for error signalling and probably some users would prefer using boost::system error_codes, so I don't see a clear path forward.

[yrashk]

Thank you.

My main concern is that exceptions in semaphore posting break use of this in signals – which should otherwise be safe, if they didn't use exceptions. This is why I proposed this additional API.

I wonder if you'd be interested in exploring how #262 can be solved? I'd be happy to iterate on an actual solution.