| 1 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:56:41 +0100 |
| 2 |
David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Does anyone have any opinions on which of the four options (#1 |
| 5 |
> make die respect nonfatal, #2 make die always die, #3 add a new |
| 6 |
> die variant that respects nonfatal, #4 make regular die respect |
| 7 |
> nonfatal, and add a new variant that doesn't) we should go with? |
| 8 |
> We should definitely get this resolved and agreed on before EAPI |
| 9 |
> 3 is finalised. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I'd like die to respect nonfatal. People using nonfatal should check |
| 12 |
beforehand that the functions they're calling won't do anything stupid if |
| 13 |
die's are ignored. If there's something that absolutely has to die, nonfatal |
| 14 |
or not, then use a variable. I guess that's #4? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
fonts, Character is what you are in the dark. |
| 19 |
gcc-porting, |
| 20 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives