* Markus Teich <markus.te...@stusta.mhn.de> [2016-10-14 12:45]:
> Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> > Oh, and before you inform me. I know that OpenVMS has the roles
> > inverted (exit(1) means success). However, there are two aspects we
> > should keep in mind:
> > 
> >     1) OpenVMS is not the most popular OS any more.
> >     2) Using EXIT_* we cannot write reliable manuals, as we do
> >        use 0, 1, 2, ... there.
> adding to that, when reading code with EXIT_bla, you don't know immediately 
> how
> it is defined. Therefore it can easily be confused when also using C-functions
> which return 1 as "true" and 0 as "false". I get that abstracting the value 
> away
> and using a name instead can make sense, but when using `return` or `exit()`,
> you don't have to give meaning to the `0` or `1` while in a line like `ret =
> calloc(5 * sizeof(struct bla) + 7);` it is very helpful to know what those
> numbers refer to semantically.

FWIW, I do think that EXIT_FAILURE and EXIT_SUCCESS is more readable 
than 0/1 and well defined. Ofc, this is not true for EXIT_TIMEOUT 
necessarily (but that hardly makes a difference for practical purposes here 

Anyhow, I don't think I have the mental capacity to have a purely academic 
discussion about this topic and I find it for the most part very subjective.
I also realize that I lack the time and am emotionally not attached to ii 
anymore as I used to be in the past. I'm essentially just a bottleneck to its 

Hiltjo Posthuma was kind enough to offer taking over the maintenance for this 
project. Thanks for that, I really appreciate this! So I'm leaving this change 
to his discretion.

Nico Golde - XMPP: n...@jabber.ccc.de - GPG: 0xA0A0AAAA

Attachment: pgp6S639tdEiA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to