Re: RFC: error codes on exit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



No, please use the standardized numbers when they apply.

On May 22, 2021 2:22:42 PM PDT, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > On 5/21/21 9:53 AM, Alex Henrie wrote:
>> >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:40 PM Felipe Contreras
>> >> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> It's good to not include many initial codes, but I would start
>with at
>> >>> least three:
>> >>>
>> >>>    OK = 0,
>> >>>    UNKNOWN = 1,
>> >>>    NORMAL = 2,
>> >> If you go that route, could you please pick a word other than
>> >> "normal"
>> >> to describe errors that are not entirely unexpected? I'm worried
>that
>> >> someone will see "normal" and use it instead of "OK" to indicate
>> >> success.
>> >> 
>> >
>> > <sysexits.h>
>> 
>> Is the value assignment standardized across systems?
>
>I think his intention was to suggest to use that list as inspiration...
>As in have USAGE, NOINPUT, UNAVAILABE, etc.
>
>I would prefer to start with something easy... UNKNOWN = 1, USUAL = 2.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux