> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:00:01PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote: > > We should either make a new status code explicitly for this, or return > > via an int* parameter. Personally I think the int* solution is > > cleaner: the function should return an error status iff something went > > wrong, and use an entirely separate channel for returning the answer. > > > > Would anyone object to this solution? > > Count me with Ryan - int* is a really bad idea. Either adding a new > status code or just using EEXISTS works for me. -- Justin
I am strongly against using APR_EEXISTS for this. APR_E* error codes imply that something went wrong. In this case, it is a status code, not an error code, and the APR convention is that ERROR codes start with APR_E and STATUS codes start with APR_ Ryan
