On Aug 13 10:24, Herbert Stocker wrote: > There is no need for the 'no', i'd suggest ELIBBAD.
Not bad, either. So we have ELIBACC, ELIBBADD, and ENOPKG as suggestions. > (And to bring back to memory, i'd also suggest to add EFAIL be added) Here's a clear "no". EFAIL is not a useful error message. It's not even slightly wrong, like EACCES in this case might be, it's entirely lacking information. What's the accompanying error message? "Something failed"? "An error occured, but I have no idea what"? This reminds me of the old awk, which apparently only knew two error messages: awk: syntax error near line x awk: bailing out near line x In which scenario would such an EFAIL be really useful, which wouldn't be better covered by an error code which contains at least *some* information about the cause? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
