Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:41:16 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "J. Mallett" <jmallett@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, brian@Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/tee tee.c Message-ID: <200205171041.g4HAfGWs090869@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> of "Thu, 16 May 2002 23:11:07 EDT." <20020516231106.G66219@espresso.q9media.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> J. Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > jmallett 2002/05/16 19:28:47 PDT
> >
> > Modified files:
> > usr.bin/tee tee.c
> > Log:
> > Remove spurious casts in malloc(3)'s argument.
>
> Okay.
>
> > Use `return' instead of `exit' at the bottom of main().
>
> This part is wrong. The usual style for BSD software is to identify
> exit points with explicit exit() calls.
I think this has been discussed a number of times on the lists. No
decision was made either way. style(9) says nothing about it.
Personally I prefer return because of the C++ implications, but
that's a weak argument. I suspect the sysinstall crunch stuff
prefers return too (but that's a guess).
So the ``wrongness'' was in changing exit to return, not the use of
either. It's up to the individual which they use, but people
shouldn't change from one to the other without a good reason.
> > Revision Changes Path
> > 1.7 +3 -3 src/usr.bin/tee/tee.c
>
> Best regards,
> Mike Barcroft
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@freebsd-services.com>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200205171041.g4HAfGWs090869>