[patch] coreutils/printf.c

walter harms wharms at bfs.de
Mon Jun 2 08:20:21 UTC 2008



Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Sunday 01 June 2008 21:31, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Denys Vlasenko" <vda.linux at googlemail.com>
>> To: <busybox at busybox.net>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [patch] coreutils/printf.c
>>
>>
>>> Do not replace "return EXIT_SUCCESS;" with "return 0;" - some people
>>> insist on having symbolic constant there (don't know why it's
>>> so important, but why not?)
>>>
>> Sorry if I am saying something evident, I am a bit new there.
>>
>> 0 mean what you think it mean in a certain context, sometime success,
>> sometime failure.
>> Having a source tree with both, this is awfull.
>>
>> EXIT_SUCCESS has no doubt
> 
> I guess if someone does not know what 0 means as a return value of main(),
> he'd better stay away from Unix coding just yet.
> 
> That's what makes me think that insisting on having EXIT_SUCCESSes
> sprinkled through code is not very useful. But there are people
> who disagree. It's not a big deal anyway.

mmmh, i remember a very famous computer supplier that reverst the meaning
of EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE in its includes :)

NTL using clear names is not a problem and makes it more readable (for some people)


just my 2 cents,
	wh









More information about the busybox mailing list