From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NeVBR-000129-VI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:05:53 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53683 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NeVBR-00011x-IU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:05:53 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1NeVBP-0006e5-UI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:05:53 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53816)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1NeVBP-0006dz-GU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:05:51 -0500
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:05:37 -0200
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] qjson: Improve debugging
Message-ID: <20100208130537.4cce7f17@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <4B702566.30605@codemonkey.ws>
References: <1265314396-6583-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<1265314396-6583-2-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<4B6B4AD2.3060704@codemonkey.ws> <20100205101217.7ec97899@doriath>
	<4B6C3F3F.7010701@codemonkey.ws>
	<m3d40jiozi.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<4B702566.30605@codemonkey.ws>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:53:26 -0600
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:

> On 02/05/2010 11:14 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Run time asserts are a terrible way to deal with reasonably expected errors.
> >>      
> > Yes.  But what's reasonably expected entirely depends on the contract
> > between the function and its callers.
> >
> > I think we need a function that cannot fail and shouldn't used with
> > untrusted arguments (for what it's worth, that's how we use
> > qobject_from_jsonf() now).  Having related functions with different
> > contracts is fine with me.
> >    
> 
> I think the key point is that if we're going to establish these 
> contracts, it must be obvious.
> 
> A reasonable programmer is going to assume that if a function can return 
> a NULL, it can possibly return an error.  If you want to deviate from 
> those semantics, you either have to name the function appropriately or 
> put a big comment above the declaration explaining the semantics.

 Given that qobject_from_jsonf() is already a good and long name, I
prefer to add the comment.

 I will do that and re-submit.