On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 17:17 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > 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). Does it matter, then, especially since this is internal? -- Arun
