On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:44 AM, Olaf van der Spek <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
You're right. I suppose it was just weird when it's actually bool and not int, but kind of consistent now that I think about it. (I see it is done like this elsewhere too.) henrik -- [email protected] +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
