From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: Completion of error handling Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:56:48 +0100 Message-ID: <4B7A79F0.1070100@op5.se> References: <4B68249F.6070004@web.de> <4B740153.4010600@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nicolas Pitre , git@vger.kernel.org To: Markus Elfring X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 16 11:57:08 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NhL6x-0007HG-Bx for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:56:59 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751387Ab0BPK4y (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:56:54 -0500 Received: from na3sys009aog103.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.71]:37748 "HELO na3sys009aog103.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751030Ab0BPK4x (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:56:53 -0500 Received: from source ([209.85.219.223]) by na3sys009aob103.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS3p587S/Iitt+RZHzNAKRy6kkNuzWa6z@postini.com; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:56:52 PST Received: by ewy23 with SMTP id 23so331246ewy.4 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:56:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.68.13 with SMTP id t13mr1277481ebi.62.1266317810768; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:56:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from clix.int.op5.se ([212.112.174.166]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 15sm5076414ewy.8.2010.02.16.02.56.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:56:49 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0.1 ThunderGit/0.1a In-Reply-To: <4B740153.4010600@web.de> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 02/11/2010 02:08 PM, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> >> What is the likelihood for those function calls to actually fail? >> > > How do you think about the usual design choices that are described in > the article "Exception Handling Alternatives" by Detlef Vollmann. > http://accu.org/index.php/journals/546 > That's an awful lot of text to read that's hardly relevant for a C program. Most of it regards newbie stuff about how to handle reporting an error when you can't use a C++ exception. > > I propose to write pointcuts for all functions that can return values. > Some corresponding error codes are checked already. But there a places > in the source files with open issues for complete software robustness. > You keep on claiming that but haven't proven it in any way. If you could point out a real bug I'm very, very certain it would be fixed within 24 hours. > Are there any chances to encapsulate more cross-cutting concerns as > reusable aspects? > > Would you like to integrate tools like the following into your software > development process? > - AspectC++ > http://aspectc.org/ > Git is written in C, not C++. Using aspectc++ would mean requiring the use of a C++ compiler, which git doesn't require today. That's one step backwards in portability which I seriously doubt the usefulness of aspectc++ can outweigh. Now please stop trolling and find one of these bugs you keep talking about but never showing. We've made it painfully clear to you that we're interested in realworld problems rather than potential ones, so all this "use this model for development" just reeks of concept evangelism. No real engineer likes that, which is why you're facing such massive opposition on this list. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war on peace.