[patch] save ~600B

[Natanael Copa]

On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 10:47 -0400, Paul Fox wrote:
> mike wrote:
>  > On Monday 05 June 2006 08:41, Paul Fox wrote:
>  > > wharm wrote:
>  > >  > personally i am the fan of
>  > >  >    exit( EXIT_FAILURE ) ;
>  > >
>  > > and "EXIT_FAILURE" is cleverly defined as "1", right?  why
>  > > not just "exit(1)"?  this keeps it simple, concise, and transparent.
>  >
>  > funny, i find EXIT_FAILURE a lot easier to read ... especially when some
>  > functions return 0 to mean success while others return 0 to mean failure
> 
> but programs aren't functions.
> 
> if i see "exit (EXIT_FAILURE)", i'll probably have to go and
> check to see what it's defined correctly, and i'll also have to
> check to be sure they also haven't been writing "return (EXIT_FAILURE)".

Just to have something more to compare with:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=sysexits&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.1-RELEASE&format=html

But this is a discussion of taste. I prefer apples over pears....

--
Natanael Copa