On 23 Aug 2013, at 07:13, Ganesh Sittampalam <gan...@earth.li> wrote:
> My gut feeling is that it makes sense to have the non-zero code. > > I'm not so sure whether it makes as much sense from things like "darcs > changes -i" where quitting is pretty much expected, but overall I'd be > inclined to think it's better to be consistent than to do it command by > command. Hmmm, would it make to separate them by "commands" and "queries" (a common OOP distinction)? I haven't looked through all the commands to sanity-check this, but maybe anything that would modify the repo could return a non-zero code on abort, but anything that purely queries it would continue to return 0. Aborting something like "changes -i" seems to come under the sense of "I'm done now, carry on" rather than "eek, I made a mistake, back out and stop everything". "changes -i" is something I'd forgotten about though, so there may be subcommands buried away that don't fit this rule. Ash -- http://www.patchspace.co.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashmoran
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
