On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:03:00 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > >> * I find it a bit safer when the error predicate is “return value != 0”. > > > > Can't agree. > > How do you think about to reduce the probability that positive return values > will accidentally be interpreted as a successful function execution.
It's not zero. > > And I have no interest to continue bike-shedding, sorry. > > I do not like that you prefer to put this technical detail into such > a communication category. > > > > You can't convince me regarding this. > > Would you still like to integrate the proposed refactoring with the use > of previous failure predicates then? That's fine. But, please don't forget what others already mentioned. For example, Joe Perches suggested to put a blank line before the label for your patches. But you completely ignored it and did the same again. thanks, Takashi
