| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:20:44PM +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:56:41 +0100 |
| 7 |
> > David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > > Does anyone have any opinions on which of the four options (#1 |
| 10 |
> > > make die respect nonfatal, #2 make die always die, #3 add a new |
| 11 |
> > > die variant that respects nonfatal, #4 make regular die respect |
| 12 |
> > > nonfatal, and add a new variant that doesn't) we should go with? |
| 13 |
> > > We should definitely get this resolved and agreed on before EAPI |
| 14 |
> > > 3 is finalised. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I'd like die to respect nonfatal. People using nonfatal should check |
| 17 |
> > beforehand that the functions they're calling won't do anything |
| 18 |
> > stupid if die's are ignored. If there's something that absolutely |
| 19 |
> > has to die, nonfatal or not, then use a variable. I guess that's #4? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I agree here (yes, I know, a "ME TOO" posting, but I say this as PMS |
| 22 |
> team member). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I must agree here too as a PMS team member. so 'me too' :P |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
--------- |
| 28 |
Thomas Anderson |
| 29 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 30 |
///////// |
| 31 |
Areas of responsibility: |
| 32 |
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council |
| 33 |
--------- |
Archives