Phase 2 construction
Its phase 2 constructor:
// Phase 2 static member constructor function, which cannot throw
inline outcome::result<file_handle> file_handle::file(file_handle::path_type path, file_handle::mode mode) noexcept
{
// Perform phase 1 of object construction
file_handle ret;
// Perform phase 2 of object construction
int flags = 0;
switch(mode)
{
case mode::attr_read:
case mode::read:
flags = O_RDONLY;
break;
case mode::attr_write:
case mode::write:
flags = O_RDWR;
break;
case mode::append:
flags = O_APPEND;
break;
default:
return std::errc::invalid_argument;
}
ret._fd = ::open(path.u8string().c_str(), flags);
if(-1 == ret._fd)
{
// Note that if we bail out here, ~file_handle() will correctly not call ::close()
return {errno, std::system_category()};
}
if(-1 == ::fstat(ret._fd, &ret._stat))
{
// Note that if we bail out here, ~file_handle() will correctly call ::close()
return {errno, std::system_category()};
}
// Returning ret directly is an area full of compiler specific behaviour quirks,
// so be explicit by wrapping into an initialiser list with embedded move.
return {std::move(ret)};
}
The static member function implementing phase 2 firstly calls phase 1
which puts the object into a legally destructible state. We then
proceed to implement phase 2 of construction, filling in the various
parts as we go, reporting via result
any failures.
Remember that operator new
has a non-throwing form, new(std::nothrow)
.
For the final return, in theory we could just return ret
and
depending on the C++ version currently in force, it might work
via move, or via copy, or it might refuse to compile. You can
of course type lots of boilerplate to be explicit, but this use
via initialiser list is a reasonable balance of explicitness
versus brevity, and it should generate minimum overhead code
irrespective of compiler, C++ version, or any other factor.