On Sunday 01 June 2008 21:31, Gilles Espinasse wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Denys Vlasenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:33 PM > Subject: Re: [patch] coreutils/printf.c > > > > > > Do not replace "return EXIT_SUCCESS;" with "return 0;" - some people > > insist on having symbolic constant there (don't know why it's > > so important, but why not?) > > > Sorry if I am saying something evident, I am a bit new there. > > 0 mean what you think it mean in a certain context, sometime success, > sometime failure. > Having a source tree with both, this is awfull. > > EXIT_SUCCESS has no doubt
I guess if someone does not know what 0 means as a return value of main(), he'd better stay away from Unix coding just yet. That's what makes me think that insisting on having EXIT_SUCCESSes sprinkled through code is not very useful. But there are people who disagree. It's not a big deal anyway. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
