Re: [PATCH 1/6] fix ambiguous errno treating after mktime()

To: Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fix ambiguous errno treating after mktime()
From: David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 04:38:17 +0000

On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 09:46:26AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
 >     Date:        Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:34:01 +0000
 >     From:        David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>
 >     Message-ID:  <20080831183401.GA5824%netbsd.org@localhost>
 > 
 >   | Right, but, as previously noted, it is desirable for functions that
 >   | are cognizant of errno to leave errno unchanged if they have not
 >   | failed, regardless of what the formal definition says.
 > 
 > Why?   What conceivable benefit does that bring anyone?

Principle of least surprise?

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] fix ambiguous errno treating after mktime()
  - From: David Laight

References:
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] fix ambiguous errno treating after mktime()
  - From: David Holland
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] fix ambiguous errno treating after mktime()
  - From: Roland Dowdeswell
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] fix ambiguous errno treating after mktime()
  - From: Robert Elz
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] fix ambiguous errno treating after mktime()
  - From: Robert Elz

Prev by Date: Re: RFC - add snscanf(3) to stdio
Next by Date: Re: RFC - add snscanf(3) to stdio
Previous by Thread: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fix ambiguous errno treating after mktime()
Next by Thread: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fix ambiguous errno treating after mktime()
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index