Date: 23 Jul 2001 14:12:05 +0200 From: Assar Westerlund <assar@FreeBSD.org> To: "Wes Peters" <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: "Brian Somers" <brian@Awfulhak.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libutil ecalloc.c emalloc.3 emalloc.c erealloc.c estrdup.c Makefile libutil.h Message-ID: <5litgjx2sq.fsf@assaris.sics.se> In-Reply-To: "Wes Peters"'s message of "Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:47:24 -0600" References: <3698025593.995835470@blabber> <5lwv508huv.fsf@assaris.sics.se> <001c01c1133a$f2b9ac50$24b244cc@blabber>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Wes Peters" <wes@softweyr.com> writes: > Perhaps "libe"?? Sure > I agree with Alfred, I really don't like the idea of a program exiting > willy-nilly and feel this will encourage developers to do so. It is > marginally better than not testing return values at all, and hoping > for a core file, but only marginally so. The fact that it has been > done alot in existing code doesn't make it a good practice, just a > common one. Why would having a function doing something you can do in one line yourself encourage programmers that wouldn't otherwise err to do it here? Where's the limit between giving a useful amount of rope and too much of it? /assar 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?5litgjx2sq.fsf>