Thoughts @facchinm ?

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.53%. Comparing base (4a02bfc) to head (6c411fe).

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #237   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.53%   95.53%           
=======================================
  Files          16       16           
  Lines        1075     1075           
=======================================
  Hits         1027     1027           
  Misses         48       48           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Definitely agree on the concept. On the numbering, it really depends on the expected pattern to consume these values. Eg:
while (!can.write()) could mean "keep trying until the error disappears", so CAN_ERROR_GENERIC should be 0 (which is also consistent with the Print.write API (returns the number of bytes actually written, so 0 bytes in case of error).

Ciao @facchinm ☕ 👋

That's allright with me. It is a little bit at odds with the current error definition but I'd say we have a chance right now to create a clean API. What do you think (concerning possible API breakage)?

What about adopting Print strategy and add setWriteError/getWriteError while returning 0 on failure?