On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Henrik Ingo <[email protected]> wrote: > PS: It's also weird to return true on failure and false on success, > even if the calling code uses those correctly (ie freak out on > true...). If I fix the above, do you mind if I swap true/false the > other way around, and then add a "!" (not) to the calling code?
Returning non-zero (true) on error is standard. Olaf _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
