apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Reducing #ifdef burden on APR applications
Date Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:12:13 GMT
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:00:13PM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Monday 22 August 2005 12:13, Joe Orton wrote:
> 
> > > OK, I guess what we really want here is an additional return code
> > > APR_NOOP. NOTIMPL is inappropriate, and you've raised an objection to
> > > SUCCESS.
> >
> > Why is ENOTIMPL inappropriate?
> 
> Erm, because ENOTIMPL is an error, whereas this noop isn't?

Now I'm confused; all apr_status_t values other than 0 are "errors" by 
definition.  If you mean, "because the caller can be taught to treat 
APR_NOOP as non-fatal", well, sure; the caller can equally be taught to 
treat APR_ENOTIMPL as non-fatal.

joe

Mime
View raw message