Hmm. Can_JOHNNY_EXEC naming is a bit quirky, not intuitive...
On 06/04/2019 04:52 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:40 AM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.stu...@gmail.com>> wrote:On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:21 PM Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com <mailto: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.
