Martin Lambers wrote:
> > But EX_OK is semantically the same as EXIT_SUCCESS. So what about this
> > patch?
>
> I think that the value 0 for EX_OK is obvious enough, so that the extra
> dependency on the exit module does not provide any real benefits.
OK, I've added EX_OK as 0 now. Sorry for the e
Since the future of the exit module is still unclear (at least to me),
and sysexits.h still does not define EX_OK, I'd like to bring this issue
up again.
I would prefer to define EX_OK to 0 for the following reasons:
1. Simplicity
2. This value is explicitly mentioned in the sysexits man page ("Th
Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> something like the attached patch (not tested)?
Yes, something like that.
For sanity's sake, I'd use the string "exitcodes" uniformly, though
(e.g., modules/exitcodes, m4/exitcodes.m4, gl_EXITCODES). And I'd
move the "#include " next to the other syste
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:20:08PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Let's please just define [EX_OK] to 0; [...]
>
> I also like Simon's suggestion of defining EXIT_SUCCESS and
> EXIT_FAILURE in config.h, [...]
something like the attached patch (not tested)?
Stepan
diff -urpN gnulib/lib/.cpp
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there an advantage to defining EX_OK to EXIT_SUCCESS over
> defining it to 0?
I can't think of any. Let's please just define it to 0; it's simpler
and less likely to cause trouble.
I also like Simon's suggestion of defining EXIT_SUCCESS and
EXIT_FAILUR
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can't the sysexit.h file assume C89, and use EXIT_SUCCESS without
> requiring the exit module? It seems a somewhat complicated dependency
> for something everyone already know is 0.
C89 says that 0 is also a successful exit code. Is there an
advanta
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Lambers wrote:
>> Back in February, I suggested to add EX_OK to the sysexit module
>> (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2005-02/msg00042.html).
>> Is there a reason not to do that?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> --- sysexit_h.orig
On Wed, 24. Aug 2005, 18:39:02 +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Martin Lambers wrote:
> > Back in February, I suggested to add EX_OK to the sysexit module
> > (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2005-02/msg00042.html).
> > Is there a reason not to do that?
>
> It sounds OK to do that; glibc'
Martin Lambers wrote:
> Back in February, I suggested to add EX_OK to the sysexit module
> (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2005-02/msg00042.html).
> Is there a reason not to do that?
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
>
> --- sysexit_h.orig2005-08-24 17:47:34.966600112 +0200
> +++ sysexit_h
Hi!
Back in February, I suggested to add EX_OK to the sysexit module
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2005-02/msg00042.html).
Is there a reason not to do that?
Regards,
Martin
--- sysexit_h.orig 2005-08-24 17:47:34.966600112 +0200
+++ sysexit_h 2005-08-24 17:47:51.731051528
10 matches
Mail list logo
