Hi, Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org>:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:56:41 +0100 > David Leverton <levert...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Does anyone have any opinions on which of the four options (#1 > > make die respect nonfatal, #2 make die always die, #3 add a new > > die variant that respects nonfatal, #4 make regular die respect > > nonfatal, and add a new variant that doesn't) we should go with? > > We should definitely get this resolved and agreed on before EAPI > > 3 is finalised. > > I'd like die to respect nonfatal. People using nonfatal should check > beforehand that the functions they're calling won't do anything > stupid if die's are ignored. If there's something that absolutely > has to die, nonfatal or not, then use a variable. I guess that's #4? I agree here (yes, I know, a "ME TOO" posting, but I say this as PMS team member). V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project <URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode <URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
