There's already ZEND_RESULT_CODE, or did I miss anything?
On 25 Dec 2014 06:45, "Xinchen Hui" <larue...@php.net> wrote:
> Hey:
>
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 24 Dec 2014, at 23:53, Levi Morrison <le...@php.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Johannes Schlüter
> >>> <johan...@schlueters.de> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 2014-12-24 at 11:13 -0700, Levi Morrison wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm asking for specific things. The reason is that some API's do a
> >>>>> non-zero error code; the fact that they are negative is a detail that
> >>>>> we should not need to care about.
> >>>>
> >>>> My guess is that positive values more often might have a meaning ("5
> >>>> items changed", "address 0x1234") whereas negative values less often
> >>>> have a meaning. Also passing -1 as parameter is more often invalid.
> Thus
> >>>> passing -1 is making debug output look more suspicious.
> >>>>
> >>>> (while there are cases where -1 is valid, see recent famous
> pid
> >>>> = fork(); /* ... */ kill(pid, SIGKILL); issue)
> >>>
> >>> I don't think this is the same use case as SUCCESS and FAILURE. Many
> >>> functions have an out parameter which is only valid when the returned
> >>> value is SUCCESS. This is not the same thing as an API which returns
> >>> an integer and just happen to embed error state in the negative range.
> >>> Notably, it doesn't make sense to do `strpos() == SUCCESS` to check
> >>> success; these are different cases. My question is specifically
> >>> directed at the ones that use SUCCESS and FAILURE: which ones require
> >>> FAILURE to be negative instead of the normal UNIX-ism of non-zero?
> >>>
> >>> For the record I am in favor of an enum such as `zend_status` or some
> >>> other name which indicates whether an operation succeeded or not for
> >>> the reasons already cited in this thread. I just don't see why FAILURE
> >>> needs to be negative and want to know why this is the case.
> >>
> >> Hi Levi,
> >>
> >> Again, I think the reason FAILURE is -1 is for consistency with other
> functions which use negative return values on error. Some functions return
> negative error codes, others just -1. Some functions return useful positive
> values, others just 0. But the idea is that all functions return a negative
> number on error, so you can use if (foo() < 0) to check for errors. That’s
> the point of making FAILURE be -1, AIUI. It makes it consistent with other
> things, like fork() or strpos().
> >
> > doing if (foo() < 0 is exactly what should not be done, for any
> > function returning a status. Only FAILURE and SUCCESS should be used.
> >
> > Which value FAILURE and SUCCESS have is not really relevant here but
> > to actually be consistent.
> >
> > For example
> >
> > ZEND_API int zend_hash_del(HashTable *ht, zend_string *key)
> >
> > should actually be
> >
> > ZEND_API status zend_hash_del(HashTable *ht, zend_string *key)
> >
> > and its usage should be:
> >
> > if (zend_hash_del(ht, key) == FAILURE) {
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > Same for zend_parse_parameters and the likes.
> >
> > However functions like zval_update_class_constant
> > (http://lxr.php.net/xref/PHP_TRUNK/Zend/zend_API.c#1132 ) and all the
> > underlying functions, are confusing. Both the signature and the return
> > values should rely on FAILURE/SUCCESS.
> >
> > I think this is what Xinchen means too. Or at least this is what I
> > mean with unify the APIs.
> yes. and as a soft solution.
>
> we can change these functions which use success/failure return
> zend_status instead of int first.
>
> thanks
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Pierre
> >
> > @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
>
>
>
> --
> Xinchen Hui
> @Laruence
> http://www.laruence.com/
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
