Re: sasc re-write
> -On [20050118 05:02], David Cuthbert (dacut@kanga.org) wrote:
>>Heh... this is one of those areas where there seem to be two distinct
>>camps with little grey area. :-)
Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
> I think that this says enough:
>
> intro(2):
>
> Successful calls never set errno; once set, it remains until another error
> occurs. It should only be examined after an error.
Different issue. That just says that you can't rely on errno if the
call is successful -- this is unambiguous.
The camps I was referring to are:
if (errno)
do_something();
vs.:
if (errno != 0)
do_something();
Clearly, the latter is The Way God Intended(tm), and the former is the
way only infidels check integral values. I also have it on good
authority that God Prefers Emacs and the UN has passed a resolution
banning VHDL in favor of Verilog. And if you believe any of this
paragraph, I have an amazing multi-level marketing opportunity for you! :-)
Dave
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 10 之 10 篇)：