Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:01:28 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@jennejohn.org> To: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A modest proposal for better errno values... Message-ID: <200305131101.h4DB1SKo005541@peedub.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.2.20030513102353.02ab02d0@gid.co.uk>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Bob Bishop writes:
> Hi,
>
> At 09:57 13/5/03, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> >[stuff]
> >#define EDOOFUS 88 /* Programming error */
> >[more stuff]
>
> Before the noise becomes unbearable, I have a question:
>
> Why isn't EINVAL appropriate to the case in question?
>
If you look at the 4 places where it's in the tree it's pretty clear that
returning EDOOFUS is meant to rub the programmer's nose in a coding error
(recursive malloc() calls, etc).
At least the error string ("Programming error") is reasonable.
I agree that the name isnt' too happily chosen and should be changed to
something more neutral before it shows up in more places in the tree.
---
Gary Jennejohn / garyj@jennejohn.org gj@freebsd.org gj@denx.de
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200305131101.h4DB1SKo005541>