> I like a different routine name better than a check-or-no-check
> parameter. If you invoke the no-check case then you *MUST* have a check
> for failure return --- forgetting to do this is exactly the problem.
> So I think it should be harder to get at the no-check case, and you
> should have to write something that reminds you that the routine is not
> checking for you. Thus "heap_open_noerr" (I'm not particularly wedded
> to that suffix, though, if anyone has a better idea for what to call
> it). A parameter would only be useful if the same calling code might
> reasonably do different things at different times --- but either there's
> a check following the call, or there's not.
OK.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
