fix rename or remove

[wolfv]

This fixes the usage of the confusing ec boolean values :)

It would be much nicer if the error_code had a has_error() function to make it easier to understand what we're testing.

Maybe @JohanMabille or @Klaim can give this a review to make sure it's correct this time around.

[JohanMabille]

I agree that it's a bit too close to the C error code mechanism.

[AntoinePrv]

Not so familiar with error code, but shouldn't we not checking the result here?

[wolfv]

we don't really care about the result because at this point the operation has already failed.

[Klaim]

Adding [[maybe_unused]] here would clarify that and avoid warnings.

[Klaim]

LGTM

I wish it was testable in some ways...

[Klaim]

It would be much nicer if the error_code had a has_error() function to make it easier to understand what we're testing.

I remember people in Boost and C++ committee agreeing with you (and adding some other issues with boost/std::error_code) and planning for an alternative which would have a better interface, but it's note in the standard (yet) and I dont know where the effort ended up. But yeah it's among the known and agreed issues.