Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:59:56 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: strtonum(3) in FreeBSD? Message-ID: <20050413075956.GO89047@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20050413030814.GA21318@VARK.MIT.EDU> References: <1113332762.27362.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050412195700.GN89047@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20050413030814.GA21318@VARK.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2005-Apr-12 23:08:15 -0400, David Schultz wrote: >It actually has a sensible way of distinguishing errors (it always >sets errno, even if to 0), I thought so initially but on closer reading, it does correctly preserve errno on success. > but this is unintuitive to anyone who >is used to the broken POSIX way of doing it. I would dispute the 'broken' adjective. Having errno only affected by errors means that you can issue a series of system calls and determine that something failed - which may be enough. POSIX inherited this behaviour from Unix - which has always behaved this way AFAIK. (That said, there are a couple of library functions that change errno but return success). -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050413075956.GO89047>