(on
+.Ox ,
+always 0)
This part makes no sense. There is no value in saying that OpenBSD
is special and will return 0. If you document it, some idiot will
depend on it.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 01:15:11AM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Matthew and Joachim,
>
> Matthew Dempsky wrote on Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:34:50AM -0700:
>
> > The issue here (if any) is that we over-specify the *successful*
> > return value as precisely 0, rather than generally non-negative.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> I like the general idea, so i'd suggest the following.
> Note that the exact wording has been chosen to be as close
> to the output of the .Rv macro as possible.
Just to voice my bike shed color preferences, I'd propose one of two
alternativ
Hi Matthew and Joachim,
Matthew Dempsky wrote on Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:34:50AM -0700:
> The issue here (if any) is that we over-specify the *successful*
> return value as precisely 0, rather than generally non-negative.
I like the general idea, so i'd suggest the following.
Note that the exact
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Joachim Schipper
wrote:
> If
> .Fn uname
> -is successful, 0 is returned; otherwise, \-1 is returned and
> +is successful, 0 is returned; otherwise, a nonzero value (on
> +.Ox ,
> +\-1) is returned and
> .Va errno
> is set appropriately.
No, that makes our man
The uname(3) man page suggests that checking the return value against -1
makes sense. That is not the case:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011, Ingo Schwarze wrote to the mandoc mailing list:
> > Yuri Pankov wrote:
> >> uname(2) on Solaris (...) states:
> >>
> >> RETURN VALUES
> >> Upon successful comple
