On Nov 1, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> So this was slightly different than the opinion that was discussed on the
> call today, which was 2. The rationale for #2 was to punish developers, but
> if such a bug did make it through to production, users wouldn't be annoyed
> with show_he
So this was slightly different than the opinion that was discussed on the call
today, which was 2. The rationale for #2 was to punish developers, but if such
a bug did make it through to production, users wouldn't be annoyed with
show_help messages all the time.
Does anyone have strong opinion
1
george.
On Nov 1, 2011, at 17:23 , Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Can you clarify -- I can parse your text multiple ways. Which are you voting
> for?
>
> 1. show_help + return error code in all cases.
> 2. if OPAL_ENABLE_DEBUG, show_help + exit(1), else silently return error code.
> 3. show_help.
Can you clarify -- I can parse your text multiple ways. Which are you voting
for?
1. show_help + return error code in all cases.
2. if OPAL_ENABLE_DEBUG, show_help + exit(1), else silently return error code.
3. show_help. if OPAL_ENABLE_DEBUG, exit(1), else return error code.
On Nov 1, 2011,
This is a much saner solution. We [mostly] stayed away from calling exit deep
into our libraries, there is no reason to add it now. I'll vote in favor of
show_help + return code.
george.
On Nov 1, 2011, at 15:14 , Jeff Squyres wrote:
> We talked about this on the call today.
>
> A good sugg
We talked about this on the call today.
A good suggestion was made: call show_help/opal_finalize/exit only when
OPAL_ENABLE_DEBUG is true. Otherwise, return an error code.
If no one objects to this, I'll commit this tomorrow.
On Oct 31, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> WHAT: what to
