On 19 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > --- apr_errno.h 2001/05/13 12:03:28 1.62 > +++ apr_errno.h 2001/05/19 13:53:06 1.63 > @@ -180,9 +180,11 @@ > * APR_EGENERAL General failure (specific information not available) > * APR_EBADIP The specified IP address is invalid > * APR_EBADMASK The specified netmask is invalid > - * APR_ENOCLEANUP There is no memory cleanup available > - * APR_EMEMSYS An invalid memory system was passed in to an > - * apr_sms function > + * APR_ENOCLEANUP There is no memory cleanup available > + * APR_EMEMSYS An invalid memory system was passed in to an > + * apr_sms function > + * APR_EMEMFUNC A function was called that isn't available in the > + * selected memory system
I really dislike the proliferation of "single use" error return codes. I can't complain too loudly about what you've done here because you've followed precedent AFAICT... I just don't like the precedent. =-) For example, I don't see why these newest ones that've been added can't be handled within the definition of existing codes. Why can't APR_ENOTIMPL and APR_EINVAL do the job here? Then there's the problem of an error code sounding bigger in scope than it is. APR_ENOCLEANUP is a perfect example. If we're going to have a code named like that, then why should it be limited to being used only by the memory system? Why wouldn't that be used in more general cases? (I can't think of a good example at the moment, but I hope you see what I'm getting at anyway.) --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
