On 9/6/07, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Frodo Baggins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/6/07, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > >> >> I think it would be worthwhile (long term) to convert the other way, > >> >> e.g., ped_free -> free, ped_malloc -> malloc, etc. > >> > > >> > But wouldn't the exception handling be a good thing in this case? > >> > >> ?!? This sort of "exception handling" is never a good thing. > >> Its use makes for ugly, unmaintainable code. > >> > >> One problem is that what libparted calls "exception handling" > >> is an ugly kludge that can make the library code produce output > >> and/or try to read an interactive reply from the user > >> (things libraries must not do, in general). In addition, > >> how the handler behaves depends on static state, > >> which is another big no-no for a library. > > > > Do we have a state machine which could help decide what to do when an > > "exception" occurs? > > I'm not sure what you mean. > The problem isn't deciding what to do, but that there > is even an opportunity to decide. Adding state and acting > on it would just make things worse. Libraries are supposed > to be stateless. > > IMHO, when something exceptional happens in a library, the > affected function should simply return with an indication of > what went wrong.
Cleaning up resources properly and propagating the error so that the user gets a sane message is the challenge. Regards, Frodo B _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
