Re: [dev] stderr: unnecessary?

From: Kris Maglione <>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:35:02 -0400

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 06:19:18PM +0200, pancake wrote:
>On 06/11/10 15:21, Moritz Wilhelmy wrote:
> unsigned int read(int fd, ref char *buf, unsigned int buf_len, GError **err);
>(yeah, thats a silly example, but it allows you to make reads
>bigger than 31 bits without having to check for the return
>value) In other situations it is good to handle errors in this
>way, but thinking on some restrictions allows you to mix error
>values and data in the same pipe.

((1<<31)-1) / (1<<30) ≅ 2GB.

I'm not seeing a major problem here. At any rate, the GError
arguments is more about a disdain for errno than anything else.
It's the same reason that Go, Limbo, and Common Lisp support
multiple return values.

Kris Maglione
The first symptom of love in a young man is shyness; the first symptom
in a woman, it's boldness.
	--Victor Hugo
Received on Fri Jun 11 2010 - 16:35:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jun 11 2010 - 16:36:02 UTC