A very good point. +1
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: > On 02/17/2011 05:11 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: >> On 02/11/2011 08:40 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: >>> On 02/11/2011 06:03 AM, Igor Galić wrote: >>>>> Right now, we have: >>>> [snip] >>>>> ~35 places where we'd need to change that. >>>> 39 if we count it like this: `` ack -l '(!|=)=\s*TS_ERROR' | wc -l '' >>>> >>>>> Might be worth the effort, I'm at least +0.5 >>>> Still doable. >>> >>> >>> Thinking about this a little more, and I'm still not entirely opposed to #3 >>> (it definitely has some merits), another concern is how people would use >>> this extra information. I mean, if the common pattern is still >> >> So, I've finished most of this work, and while reading code, and discussing >> on IRC, I think we'll need to make one more change. The issue is that a few >> APIs uses an "int" return code as a boolean, where 1 means "success" (e.g. >> you found a header), and 0 means "failure" (e.g. not found). I'd like to >> propose that we change these to use TSReturnCode as well (TS_SUCCESS and >> TS_ERROR). > > > Fwiw, here's the changes that would be necessary to eliminate the last > remnants of treating "int" as booleans in the APIs: > > http://pastebin.com/jWg55hAU > > > As you can see, there's not a whole lot of changes honestly. > > Cheers, > > -- leif >
