| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:07:09AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the |
| 4 |
> point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially |
| 5 |
> giving them message "stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me, |
| 6 |
> you fix it." |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The developer is not going to be psychic to the point of knowing what |
| 9 |
the user *WANTED* to do, years after the code was written... or which |
| 10 |
different users were expecting which different outcomes. E.g. if |
| 11 |
portage encounters a problem during a build, do you *REALLY* want it to |
| 12 |
jump in and randomly patch source code and/or makefiles to get it |
| 13 |
working? NO!!! You want it to halt, with an informative error message, |
| 14 |
possibly including suggestions for corrective action. If I mistakenly |
| 15 |
tell a system to do B, really meaning do A, that's my fault. If I tell |
| 16 |
it to do A, and it decides to do B, I will be extremely p'd off. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 20 |
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications |
Archives