On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:40 AM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:21 PM Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> > wrote: > >> >> Unfortunately, it does make the subprocess implementation even >> more complicated, since now "fail" is used to communicate success as well >> as failure. Which probably results in some comments becoming stale. Can >> we come up with a better name for "fail" that reflects the new >> implementation? I suggest "can_johnny_exec". >> >> > As in the can_johnny_exec_pipe and its CAN_JOHNNY_EXEC_PIPE_FD ? Sure, why > not :). > Let's do it. Not sure whether this will make our readability expert Rudolf Flesch roll over in his grave.
