From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 13 02:27:35 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F0BE37B401 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 02:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gidgate.gid.co.uk (gid.co.uk [194.32.164.225]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A71B643F85 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 02:27:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Received: (from rb@localhost) by gidgate.gid.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4D9RVd35041; Tue, 13 May 2003 10:27:31 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from rb) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030513102353.02ab02d0@gid.co.uk> X-Sender: rbmail@gid.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 10:27:30 +0100 To: hackers@freebsd.org From: Bob Bishop In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed cc: Jordan Hubbard Subject: Re: A modest proposal for better errno values... X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:27:35 -0000 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? -- Bob Bishop +44 (0)118 977 4017 rb@gid.co.uk fax +44 (0)118 989 4254