On Monday 22 August 2005 13:12, Joe Orton wrote:
> > Erm, because ENOTIMPL is an error, whereas this noop isn't? > > Now I'm confused; all apr_status_t values other than 0 are "errors" by > definition. If you mean, "because the caller can be taught to treat > APR_NOOP as non-fatal", well, sure; the caller can equally be taught to > treat APR_ENOTIMPL as non-fatal. I disagree. For example, APR_EOF is an end-condition, not an error. apr_errno even defines different ranges of codes for different things. In practical terms, suppose I implement APR for Platform X, but leave some parts (which my application doesn't happen to need) unimplemented, returning APR_ENOTIMPL. Now if we've used APR_ENOTIMPL for a no-op success, *all apps* that use the feature have lost the distinction between success and a failure that can't be ignored. -- Nick Kew
