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