In article <20000625073635.8922.qmail@defiant.cqc.com> you wrote:
> OK, obviously it is undesirable to break `if(errno==ENOENT)' in cases where
> the author has taken the necessary precautions to insure he's actually caught
> the right error. A second error channel would have to be added to carry more
> detailed information. And such an interface would take years to reach
> widespread use, even ignoring the time that would inevitably be wasted by
> squabbling over minute details. Nevermind
Actually there are two more channels right now, one is used for example in
the Resolver (herror) and the other is a diag message to syslog.
We could modify strerror to return a more verbose error, by accessing an
internal additional minor error value, but the problem with this is (like
herrno) that is is not reentrtant nor threadsafe nor sane.
We can only hope applications get more user friendly. A shell for example
CAN actally check if the #!/ interpreter is found and notice the user about
it. It is such a common error that in this case we dont need an additional
errno... with the big advantage that thos shell will work on all unices more
user friendly.
Greetings
Bernd
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Achtung: diese Newsgruppe ist eine unidirektional gegatete Mailingliste.
> Antworten nur per Mail an die im Reply-To-Header angegebene Adresse.
> Fragen zum Gateway -> newsmaster@inka.de.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 21:00:07 EST