Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On August 22, 2005 1:35:48 PM +0100 Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Not true. The application can then decide what to do in the presence of
the APR_ENOTIMPL case - in this case, we can document that apr_thread_*
foo can return APR_ENOTIMPL if the underlying OS doesn't support it.
No, I still disagree. The fundamental point is that it leaves us using
ENOTIMPL in a manner that is both success (it's a no-op) and failure
(it's not implemented because noone got round to it yet). I want my
applications to know when they're dealing with an error!
--
Nick Kew
