On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 18:10 +0200, Neal H. Walfield wrote: > At Sun, 08 Jul 2007 00:03:10 -0400, > Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > I am honestly not sure what to do here, and I would appreciate input. > > The bottom line, I think, is that *any* failure to check results is > > potentially fatal in this type of code no matter which way the IDL is > > generated. Either idiom can be maintained by a careful programmer. > > An interesting counterexample may be that of POSIX file streams. > Instead of checking after every read or write for an error, the > programmer may just check if an error occurred at the end of a > sequence of operations using ferror. This can greatly simplify the > code.
Yes. However, note that this trick "works" only because UNIX system calls have always returned scalars, and all of those scalars have tended to take the form of mostly-ignorable "status output". I understand why it seems to work (notably exception of terminal I/O where read/write lengths really need to be checked), but it doesn't seem to generalize. -- Jonathan S. Shapiro, Ph.D. Managing Director The EROS Group, LLC _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
