> > It does. Specifically, it uses "unknown" to mean "the value could not be > > retrieved"; there is a separate possible definition of "unknown" which > > means "the value was retrieved, but actually had the value "unknown" which > > it will report as "unknown"). > > > > I view the use of "?" as a way to represent an unknown value (such as > > using "--" to represent an empty value in non-parsable mode) as an > > output policy choice which should be handled by the output engine you've > > built, not hardcoded into ipmpstat and others. > > > > I will file a bug to have "?" documented in ipmpstat(1M). > > Ok. So "?" is actually always an error for ipmpstat?
Yes, it's a soft error indicating that a specific value could not be retrieved. The expectation is that the output engine will continue on rather than give up. (I'm not sure if there are cases where we'd want the output engine to stop, but that just having the application call die() wouldn't suffice.) > > > > * 1295: Formatting here is now odd. Suggest adding a tabstop > > after > > > > "0," on all the lines so that everything aligns again. > > > > > > yes, I noticed this too. and I can add the tabstop, though group_fields > > will > > > stick out longer than the other *fields[] rows. > > > > If you pad things out per my recommendation above, I think everything > > should line up. > > You want me to tab out all the *fields[] to get the `}' to line up? > (I don't care myself, it's really an aesthetic preference). Yes, and probably the enums following as well, though I may change my mind when I see that ;-) -- meem
