apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mihai Limbasan <mihai...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: apr_status_t testing against APR_SUCCESS usage question
Date Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:40:30 GMT
Check, I hear you. I'll split it tomorrow then (tired right now and
working while tired is a no-no) and resubmit the
positive-success-report version.


On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:35:06 -0500, Garrett Rooney
<rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:

> Ok, I think we may be talking about two different cases...
> 
> There's the "check if a call returned an error, and if so return that to
> your caller" case, which personally I think is easist to read as:
> 
> if (rv)
>    return rv;
> 
> If there is an error, we return it, the code does exactly what you would
> read out loud if you were reading it to someone.  In Subversion land we
> make it even more explicit by using 'err' or 'apr_err' for the variable
> holding the status, instead of rv, but even without that it's still more
> readable this way IMO.
> 
> And there's the "check if a call succeeded, and if so return that to
> your caller" case, which I'm not all that picky about.  Perhaps
> including APR_SUCCESS there in some manner is probably best, as it makes
> it clear that we're looking for success.
> 
> The patch seems to deal with both situations, and in the first case I
> just don't see how it helps other than making things more verbose when
> there's little need.
> 
> -garrett
> 

-- 
Mihai Limbasan

Mime
View raw message