Subject: 2 New UT_Error type candidates
From: sam th (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2000 - 22:01:44 CST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I am currently going through the code to try to fix the functions that
should return UT_Error but instead return UT_Bool. (There are lots) In
doing this, I have two potential new errors -
1 UT_FAKEOK - This would represent an OK that didn't mean anything, as in,
there was only one return statment, and it returned OK. This has a
serious boolean testing problem (0 is taken), and cannot be implemented if
that is not solved.
2 UT_REALLY_BAD_ERROR - This would go along with
UT_ASSERT(UT_SHOULD_NOT_HAPPEN). The code would look like
This might well be superfluous.
Neither of these is really neccessary, but I just wanted to see what
people thought of them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Mar 29 2000 - 22:01:49 CST