apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wesley W. Garland" <wes.garl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: advice on use of APR_STATUS_IS_*
Date Thu, 12 May 2005 01:38:13 GMT
Aside from stylistic consistency, I can't see a compelling reason for
using the APR_STATUS_IS_* macro group -- and I think a viable case
could be made for avoiding them entirely for a fresh codebase. (For
example, I have 49,773 lines of apr-centric application code here...
and zero lines where APR_STATUS_IS_* appears).

If I was working on PERL APR:: bindings, I would choose whatever is
the best expression for the language. Not knowing PERL, I can't really
comment there.

For what it's worth, I feel fairly strong about using two types of return calls:

1. check against != APR_SUCCESS
2. check using switch() with a default: case

...and I really hate unnecessary macros.

But this is more of a religious discussion than an APR discussion, so
I won't expound further. :)


On 5/8/05, Randy Kobes <randy@theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca> wrote:
> mod_perl 2 supplies some APR::* modules for binding to apr,
> and a question has arisen regarding checking error codes
> against the appropriate APR_* constants. In apr_errno.h
> there are warnings about using the corresponding
> APR_STATUS_IS_* macros, as there could be more than one
> variant satisfying an error condition (eg,
> APR_STATUS_IS_ENOENT). There are a number of cases though
> for which at present there's only one such condition (eg,
> APR_STATUS_IS_EOF). What we were wondering is if the
> APR_STATUS_IS_* macros are still strongly recommended to use
> in cases where there is only one variant? Or, for such
> cases, has common useage become just to compare against the
> corresponding APR_* constant (eg, APR_EOF)? Thanks very
> much.
> --
> best regards,
> randy kobes

Wesley W. Garland
Director, Product Development
PageMail, Inc.
+1 613 542 2787 x 102

View raw message