On Sat, 20 May 2023 at 13:08, Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm resending Reuben's patch inline CCing all interested parties. I'm, > similarly to Steffen, not convinced that invalid input englobes output > errors. So, I think it would be better to split it into 2 different > reasons, so that we have a 5th reason for the error. > > I also slightly tweaked the commit log regarding formatting. Many thanks! > What do you think about having a 5th reason? You're right that it is a different logical condition; my only concern is that the new working make it obvious that this condition results in EILSEQ, to avoid the confusion that myself and others have had over the years from believing that EILSEQ only results from invalid input (from reading earlier versions of this man page, and the POSIX standard). -- https://rrt.sc3d.org
