Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:18:51 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: exit(3) and sysexits(3) style policy Message-ID: <E4B1BF55-8295-4A95-B621-77D7D54DDFF5@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110424174442.GA45573@freebsd.org> References: <20110424174442.GA45573@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 24, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> wrote: > hi there, >=20 > i was wondering about this for some time now: >=20 > various documents decribe different policies regarding exit(3)'s return va= lues. > style(9) e.g. recommends using exit(0), while other man pages such as err(= 3) > recommend using the sysexits(3) return values. >=20 > 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 c= onsistent.=20=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E4B1BF55-8295-4A95-B621-77D7D54DDFF5>