Re: ANSI-fy of ranlib, ruptime and rdist [patches]
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> My personal opinion is that we should not make coding/style decisions
> based on what linters might complain about, because most linters are really
> quite out of date. Also, C is not Java. In all the bugs I've ever found,
> I think ignoring a return value (as the cause of a bug) falls so far down
> in the noise that it isn't worth worrying about.
I didn't mean to argue that the style should go one way or the other;
just pointing out the reason for the rule. Personally, it's one that I
often break.
However, I don't grok your "C is not Java" reasoning. If anything, it's
more important to check return values in C due to its lack of exceptions.
Also, while not checking a return value is usually not the cause of a
bug, it can often provide very useful clues for the onset of a bug.
I've had people complain, for example, that an IPC library I wrote isn't
working properly, or that it's causing a coredump. Upon closer
inspection, they were ignoring the fact that an xxxConnect() call was
returning ECONNREFUSED.
Maybe we just have sloppier programmers at work? <shrug>
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 18 之 20 篇)：