Hi, * 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 imho). 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 development. 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. Cheers, Nico -- Nico Golde - XMPP: n...@jabber.ccc.de - GPG: 0xA0A0AAAA
Description: PGP signature