On 8/24/2016 11:31 AM, Jim Blandy wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:39 PM, R Kent James <k...@caspia.com > <mailto:k...@caspia.com>> wrote: > > Exactly, and I hope that you and others restrain your exuberance a > little bit for this reason. A warning would be one thing, but a hard > failure that forces developers to drop what they are doing and think > hard about an appropriate check is just having you set YOUR priorities > for people rather than letting people do what might be much more > important work. > > > it seems to me that propagating errors correctly is a just fundamental > part of writing production code. It's more like a coding standards > issue, not something that's practical to treat as a question of > personal preference and priorities.
It's clear that my opinion here is a tiny minority, so I'm not really trying to change this anymore. But for the record, there are LOTS of issues in Mozilla code that are missing a "part of writing production code" My own pet peeve is JS code that gives no hint about the types of inputs, when there are complex assumptions about the types. Or C++ files that give you no hint about why they exist, and their fundamental purpose. How would you like it if I pushed a patch that shutdown all Firefox code development until all of these documentation issues were cleaned up? That might not be the highest priority today, right, even though it is a "fundamental part of writing production code" (as well as my pet peeve and a high priority to me)? That is the point I am trying to make. But as I said I am a minority, so not really worth continuing this discussion. So I guess I'll have to drop what I am doing to review patches to fix this in really old, unimportant code (like a SeaMonkey to Thunderbird profile migrator). :rkent _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
