Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

2016-10-29 Thread Klemens Nanni
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 08:42:12PM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:40:01 +0200 Klemens Nanni wrote: Returning -1 upon a valid invocation like 'dwm -v' is just wrong. I agree, but we should get rid of this EXIT_* stuff altogether. My proposal: if

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

2016-10-29 Thread Quentin Rameau
> I agree, but we should get rid of this EXIT_* stuff altogether. > My proposal: > > if (argc == 2 && !strcmp("-v", argv[1])) { > fputs("dwm-"VERSION, stdout); > return 0; > } else if (argc != 1) > die("usage: dwm [-v]"); > > What do you guys

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

2016-10-29 Thread Laslo Hunhold
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:40:01 +0200 Klemens Nanni wrote: > Returning -1 upon a valid invocation like 'dwm -v' is just wrong. I agree, but we should get rid of this EXIT_* stuff altogether. My proposal: if (argc == 2 && !strcmp("-v", argv[1])) {

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

2016-10-28 Thread David Phillips
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:58:14PM +0200, Martin Kühne wrote: > IMHO, when failing to parse command line arguments, usage() should be > called before exiting with EXIT_FAILURE. > on invocation with -h|--help, it should exit with EXIT_SUCCESS. > > cheers! > mar77i This sounds sane and solves the

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

2016-10-28 Thread Martin Kühne
IMHO, when failing to parse command line arguments, usage() should be called before exiting with EXIT_FAILURE. on invocation with -h|--help, it should exit with EXIT_SUCCESS. cheers! mar77i

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

2016-10-28 Thread quinq
> > If not, that's your fault (or the packager you trust do to it for > > you, actually again your responsability). > > Blaming someone else won't solve the issue. Exactly, hence “your responsability”.

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

2016-10-28 Thread Ali H. Fardan
On 2016-10-28 13:21, Quentin Rameau wrote: On 2016-10-28 13:02, Quentin Rameau wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:45:14PM +, Ali H. Fardan wrote: >> actually, imo, I think >> usage() should return success. > Surely not. > The call to usage() is made when wrong options have been passed to >

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

2016-10-28 Thread Quentin Rameau
> On 2016-10-28 13:02, Quentin Rameau wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:45:14PM +, Ali H. Fardan wrote: > >> actually, imo, I think > >> usage() should return success. > > Surely not. > > The call to usage() is made when wrong options have been passed to > > the tool, you wouldn't

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

2016-10-28 Thread Ali H. Fardan
On 2016-10-28 13:02, Quentin Rameau wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:45:14PM +, Ali H. Fardan wrote: actually, imo, I think usage() should return success. Surely not. The call to usage() is made when wrong options have been passed to the tool, you wouldn't return “no error” code when

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

2016-10-28 Thread Ali H. Fardan
I don't think -v should output to stderr either, actually, imo, I think usage() should return success. On 2016-10-28 12:40, Klemens Nanni wrote: Returning -1 upon a valid invocation like 'dwm -v' is just wrong. --- dwm.c | 6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git

[hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

2016-10-28 Thread Klemens Nanni
Returning -1 upon a valid invocation like 'dwm -v' is just wrong. --- dwm.c | 6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/dwm.c b/dwm.c index 421bf27..35828b4 100644 --- a/dwm.c +++ b/dwm.c @@ -2122,8 +2122,10 @@ zoom(const Arg *arg) int main(int argc, char *argv[])