[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: More error leaks

From: Branko ─îibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2006-01-27 07:31:04 CET

Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Garrett Rooney wrote:
>> On 1/25/06, Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>> 2. SVN_NO_IGNORE(svn_error_t *)
>>> function_name(param one,
>>> param two);
>> I prefer this method, FWIW, since it implies that what you're not
>> supposed to ignore is the svn_error_t * you get from the function, and
>> more importantly because it avoids obscuring the return value.
> I lean towards not marking up the function decls at all, but if
> consensus goes the other way, I also prefere this one. As Garrett
> mentions, it obscures what's going on the least.
Before anyone starts doing this, please consider:

    * What happens to the generated API documentation
    * Can we conceivably do this with an attribute on svn_error_t
      instead of every function that returns it

Whatever you decide to do, the generated docs have to remain clean (that
is, there should be no trace of such obfuscation^Wdecoration in the docs).

-- Brane

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 27 07:31:51 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.