Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > Il 28/11/2013 14:23, Igor Mammedov ha scritto: >> > object_property_set(Foo, bar, "baz", &abort_on_err); >> >> that is just another way to put burden on caller, instead of doing it >> in one place. > > It's also much more self-documenting. > > The problem is that there is one very good case where you want the > silent-don't-care behavior: when you don't care about the exact error, > and you can figure out whether there was an error from the returned > value of the function. This doesn't apply to object_property_set of > course, but it is the reason why NULL Error* has silent-don't-care behavior. > > Now, let's look at the alternatives: > > * keep silent don't care > + consistent > + predictable > - not always handy > > * only modify object_property_set > + mostly does the right thing > - inconsistent with other Error* functions > - inconsistent with _nofail functions > > * Peter's alternative > + self-documenting > + consistent > + predictable > > * make Error* mandatory for all void functions > + consistent > + almost predictable (because in C you can ignore return values) > - not necessarily does the right thing (e.g. cleanup functions) > - requires manual effort to abide to the policy > > I vote for Peter's proposal, or for adding object_property_set_nofail. > No particular preference. > > Another variant: modify object_property_set to add a g_warning. I think > it's fine. It reduces the inconsistency, and still simplifies debugging.
I like Peter's proposal, provided we use it to get rid of the _nofail pattern. Second preference is adding another _nofail wrapper.
