David H. Thornley writes:
>
> "Derek R. Price" wrote:
> >
> > Still, where's the harm in returning only EXIT_SUCCESS & EXIT_FAILURE on
> > systems that require that and a little more information on systems which
> > support it?
>
> Because any system that requires it is broken. I doubt that
> catering for individual broken systems is high on anybody's
> priority list (except somebody who works on that system).
I think you missed a subtle shift in the topic under discussion. Derek
wasn't proposing redefining EXIT_SUCCESS or EXIT_FAILURE, he was
proposing adding additional exit statuses (e.g. EXIT_SOME_DIFFERENCES)
that can have distinct values on systems that support multiple exit
statuses or can be defined as EXIT_SUCCESS or EXIT_FAILURE on system
that only support a binary success/failure status.
-Larry Jones
My upbringing is filled with inconsistent messages. -- Calvin
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
