Joel Granados <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:14:47PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Joel Granados <[email protected]> writes: >> ... >> >> > If the only values ever returned are non-negative (as it seems they >> >> > are), >> >> > then it'd be far more readable to make the return type "unsigned int". >> >> > Otherwise, I have to wonder if some of these functions may return a >> >> > negative value, and write code in each caller to handle that. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Seems like a good idea. And: No, they are supposed to be possitive >> >> values. Note this will propagate into other elements of the patch as >> >> well. >> > >> > On the other hand, ped_disk_get_max_partition would need to return -1 >> >> Yes, but that's a different function. >> From what I recall reading, your new > > mmm. sorry got confused. > >> >> >> > > +extern int ped_disk_get_max_partition_num(const PedDisk* disk); >> >> merely queries the code for the appropriate partition table type >> and always returns a non-negative number. > > well. The specific code in each label might return a negative number > for error as well. Think of some spec that defines that maximum number > as something that might be read from disk (just playing the devils > advocate here). The read from disk might fail and then it must be able > to tell the calling function that something when wrong.
Between now and when parted learns to support some _new_ partition table type that works that way, we should have plenty of time... _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
