From: Massimiliano P. <ma...@ha...> - 2001-04-19 14:11:05
|
Michael Bell wrote: > I think the way proposed by you is much more error proof than the way > with defined and not defined values but if we choose this way of > implementation I would be a little bit more general too. > > Could we allow all FALSE values and strongly recommend "undef" or "0" if > the function fails? The following if-statement is at every time correct: > > if (not $obj->sub ()) I think there is no problem with that. > Regards Michael > > The definitions until now are: > * $obj->errno (); > * $obj->errval(); > * FAILED operations return a false value > * FAILED operations SHOULD return "undef" or "0" > * a failed call to OpenCA::MODULE->new () should made available > # OpenCA::MODULE->errno (); > # OpenCA::MODULE->errval (); I agree with you. I have to put on the schedule for the modules... -- C'you, Massimiliano Pala --o------------------------------------------------------------------------- Massimiliano Pala [OpenCA Project Manager] ma...@op... ma...@ha... http://www.openca.org Tel.: +39 (0)59 270 094 http://openca.sourceforge.net Mobile: +39 (0)347 7222 365 |