> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:jerenkrantz@apache.org]
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:00:01PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > We should either make a new status code explicitly for this, or
return
> > via an int* parameter. Personally I think the int* solution is
> > cleaner: the function should return an error status iff something
went
> > wrong, and use an entirely separate channel for returning the
answer.
> >
> > Would anyone object to this solution?
>
> Count me with Ryan - int* is a really bad idea. Either adding a new
> status code or just using EEXISTS works for me. -- Justin
I am strongly against using APR_EEXISTS for this. APR_E* error codes
imply that something went wrong. In this case, it is a status code, not
an error code, and the APR convention is that ERROR codes start with
APR_E and STATUS codes start with APR_
Ryan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 2 23:47:10 2002