On Sat, 2016-04-09 at 09:36 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > On 7 April 2016 at 20:02, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 15:46 +0530, arun at accosted.net wrote: > > > > > > -pa_rtp_context* pa_rtp_context_init_send(pa_rtp_context *c, int fd, uint32_t ssrc, uint8_t payload, size_t frame_size); > > > +bool pa_rtp_context_init_send(pa_rtp_context *c, int fd, uint32_t ssrc, uint8_t payload, size_t frame_size); > > The function never fails, so what's the point of this patch? > I'll add this to the commit message, but this is basically for > consistency later when I add an RTP implementation which can fail. Ok, my original assumption was that in some later patch you'd add a failure condition to this function, but I didn't find that. It didn't occur to me that this could be about consistency with some other function. > > (Also, a reminder: we've agreed to report function failures using a > > negative int value rather than a bool.) > Was that only for external functions, or internal ones as well? At least I understood the previous discussion to be about internal functions as well. Maybe it was ambiguous and we interpreted each other wrong (I don't have the previous discussion at hand to check). -- Tanu
