On 3/9/23 03:02, Mariusz Tkaczyk wrote: > On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 14:04:12 -0500 >> Maybe it would be worth starting the enum outside the range of the >> regular errno so they can overlap? Not sure if it adds any value, just a >> thought. >> > I see no value either. > What if someone will add new error definition to errno? Should we change our > enum start then? I think that nobody will notice it until issue but it is > unlikely too. For that reason I think that it is pointless from the beggining > because we are defnining rule which won't be honored later. > > I think that we can just to redefine errno codes in enum if they are needed. We > are free to change particular enum constant value to make room for errno > compatible codes if there will be need to. That should be safe if some code > does not have ugly trick like calling external function and comparing it with > enum constant: > > */ let's say that SUCCESS is 0 */ > if (strncmp(arg, arg1, arg2) == ENUM_STATUS_SUCCESS) > > but it is our job to catch it on review so we are safe here, right? :) Fair enough Jes
