On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:20:44PM +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > Hi, > > Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org>: > > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:56:41 +0100 > > David Leverton <levert...@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 must agree here too as a PMS team member. so 'me too' :P -- --------- Thomas Anderson Gentoo Developer ///////// Areas of responsibility: AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council ---------
pgp1DcsVBwPus.pgp
Description: PGP signature
