From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:28:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:28:03 -0400 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:26375 "HELO garrincha.netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:28:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:30:59 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Lars Marowsky-Bree Cc: "Patrick J. LoPresti" , Joseph Malicki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: close return value Message-ID: <20020719193059.GD2718@conectiva.com.br> Mail-Followup-To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Lars Marowsky-Bree , "Patrick J. LoPresti" , Joseph Malicki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200207182347.g6INlcl47289@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <015401c22f40$c4471380$da5b903f@starbak.net> <20020719192524.GY12420@marowsky-bree.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020719192524.GY12420@marowsky-bree.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Url: http://advogato.org/person/acme Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 09:25:24PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree escreveu: > On 2002-07-19T14:48:44, > "Patrick J. LoPresti" said: > > > Of course, checking errors in order to handle them sanely is a good > > thing. Nobody is arguing that. What I am arguing is that failing to > > check errors when they can "never happen" is wrong. > > Actually, checking for _all_ even remotely possible and checkable error > conditions (if the check doesn't incur an intolerable overhead) is a very very > important requirement for writing high quality code; even if it isn't "fault If the function is not to be checked for errors, lets make it return void and be done with it. There are few _exceptions_, but one has to understand the meaning of that word 8) - Arnaldo