Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:21:12 +0000 From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> To: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: exit(3) and sysexits(3) style policy Message-ID: <20110428072112.GA66450@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <E4B1BF55-8295-4A95-B621-77D7D54DDFF5@gmail.com> References: <20110424174442.GA45573@freebsd.org> <E4B1BF55-8295-4A95-B621-77D7D54DDFF5@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun Apr 24 11, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Apr 24, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > hi there, > > > > i was wondering about this for some time now: > > > > various documents decribe different policies regarding exit(3)'s return values. > > style(9) e.g. recommends using exit(0), while other man pages such as err(3) > > recommend using the sysexits(3) return values. > > > > i think i read some time ago on the mailinglists that it was decided that > > exit(3) should return integers rathers than sysexits(3) values. is this > > correct? shouldn't then all references such as in err(3) be removed and a > > note added to sysexits(3) that returnings its values via exit(3) does not > > according to current FreeBSD programming style? > > Bruce Evans was very anti-sysexits a while ago, and I personally agree -- in part because they're not necessarily portable and their application isn't consistent. thanks for the hint. i'll try to find bruce's mail regarding this issue in the mailinglist archives. -- a13x
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110428072112.GA66450>