-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.1k
Description
@rustbot label C-discussion
Main tracking issue: #86442
Background
The io_error_more feature introduced 21 new variants into ErrorKind. They were FCP'd back in December 2022, but there appeared to be quite a lot of disagreement about 4 of the added variants, so the stabilization (#106375) got stalled for over twenty months. Thankfully, the 17 uncontroversial variants got stabilized in #128316, so now we just need to iron out a satisfactory design for the remaining 4 variants, and then they can be stabilized too.
In order to not block any of the remaining variants on each other and to not intertwine the discussions, I've created 4 separate issues, which summarize the concerns & suggestions voiced up until this point and can serve as a place for further discussion.
FilesystemLoop: [discussion]ErrorKind::FilesystemLoopfromio_error_more#130188FilesystemQuotaExceeded: [discussion]ErrorKind::FilesystemQuotaExceededfromio_error_more#130190CrossesDevices: you are hereInvalidFilename: [discussion]ErrorKind::InvalidFilenamefromio_error_more#130192
CrossesDevices
Currently corresponds to EXDEV on Unix and ERROR_NOT_SAME_DEVICE on Windows. (#86442 (comment))
Current docs description:
Cross-device or cross-filesystem (hard) link or rename.
NotSameDevice
I think
NotSameDeviceis a better name thanCrossesDevices. For me, it expresses its meaning more clearly. FWIW, the Linux man page also uses the word "same" to describeEXDEV:oldpath and newpath are not on the same mounted filesystem.Also, I find
NotSameDeviceto be stylistically more consistent with the other existing and proposed error identifiers.
Originally posted by kalcutter in #86442 (comment)
Would you also consider
NotSameDeviceinstead ofCrossesDevices?
Originally posted by kalcutter in #106375 (comment)
I personally don't think we should rename
CrossesDevices.
Originally posted by Josh Triplett in #106375 (comment)