Em Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 09:25:24PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree escreveu:
> On 2002-07-19T14:48:44,
> "Patrick J. LoPresti" <patl@curl.com> said:
>
> > Of course, checking errors in order to handle them sanely is a good
> > thing. Nobody is arguing that. What I am arguing is that failing to
> > check errors when they can "never happen" is wrong.
>
> Actually, checking for _all_ even remotely possible and checkable error
> conditions (if the check doesn't incur an intolerable overhead) is a very very
> important requirement for writing high quality code; even if it isn't "fault
If the function is not to be checked for errors, lets make it return void and
be done with it. There are few _exceptions_, but one has to understand the
meaning of that word 8)
- Arnaldo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:31 EST