Re: A question about patches for upstream
Matthias Urlichs dixit:
>Thorsten Glaser:
>> Did you *read* how upstream answered the one thing I *did* forward
>> myself?
>>
>For the benefit of the other readers here, would you please supply a
>reference URL?
Sure: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=728053
>> <igli> exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea.
>> <igli> just about the worst way you could do something like that, afaic.
>> <igli> it's like anti-design. <mirabilos> that toob> <igli> sure, tho i doubt anyone will listen ;)
>
>I agree that they're somewhat like democracy -- pretty bad,
>but all other possible solutions are worse.
No, explicit C error handling, once you standardise on one
way of signalling errors (ideally, 0 = okay, !0 = error),
bears the other methods.
But let’s not become even more off-topic ☻
bye,
//mirabilos
--
“It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as
seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number of
seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch.”
-- IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2
Reply to: