-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic.TakeThisOut@gentoo.org>:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:56:41 +0100
>> David Leverton <levertond.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone have any opinions on which of the four options (#1
>>> make die respect nonfatal, #2 make die always die, #3 add a new
>>> die variant that respects nonfatal, #4 make regular die respect
>>> nonfatal, and add a new variant that doesn't) we should go with?
>>> We should definitely get this resolved and agreed on before EAPI
>>> 3 is finalised.
>> I'd like die to respect nonfatal. People using nonfatal should check
>> beforehand that the functions they're calling won't do anything
>> stupid if die's are ignored. If there's something that absolutely
>> has to die, nonfatal or not, then use a variable. I guess that's #4?
>
> I agree here (yes, I know, a "ME TOO" posting, but I say this as PMS
> team member).
I thought the whole idea was that functions that don't currently die by default
because sometimes this is unwanted will now die by default but provide an opt
out --non-fatal switch to get back the old behavior. In the non-fatal case such
functions should then again (as in the current situation) not call die.
Some functions will not have a --non-fatal switch.
Some functions should not have a --non-fatal switch.
Some functions will call die unconditionally.
What is the reason that we are trying to generalize non-fatal from a simple
switch to a full-blown primitive that should handle whatever it's thrown?
Marijn
- --
If you cannot read my mind, then listen to what I say.
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkqTuzoACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xh1ACgjvtPz+3uke5p2p+iVuSmGw1u
JKwAn2O2l1h8gRDkGnfZ2aIwaIHvlr/L
=ybPQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----