|
From: Rainer G. <rge...@hq...> - 2008-10-05 11:07:37
|
> - Error handling is very inconsistent. Especially the functions that > return 1 (one) on success are *very* uncommon. I'd change > that so that > *all* functions (that return a status message) return 0 (zero) on > success and less than zero upon failure. While it is good to have consistent error handling, this one breaks all exitisting applications. Even worse, code would begin to fail by a simple upgrade of the library. Thus I conclude this is a no-go. The alternative may be to do a new call right at init, let's say SetConsistentErrors(ON),which would modify the errors returned. So new apps could call this and use the consistent error codes. That would work. Rainer |