Message6565

Author malte
Recipients jendrik, malte, silvan
Date 2017-10-19.14:12:05
Content
I don't really understand the motivation in the first two paragraphs. If I
understand correctly, you are saying that us following the universal convention
of "0" for "everything succeeded" would be inconsistent. In what way?

Both using a non-zero exit code on success (thus preventing users from using
things like "set -e" or "subprocess.check_call") and requiring all users to
parse output to detect whether the planner succeeded (which in the worst case
requires callers to do complex dances with select etc. to avoid buffering the
whole output in memory just to determine the exit condition) don't sound good to
me. If there's a strong reason for it, we can discuss it, but I don't see it yet.

Having the driver output the individual exit codes of the components could be
quite useful. But I think that doesn't imply that we shouldn't attempt to have
it produce a meaningful exit code itself.
History
Date User Action Args
2017-10-19 14:12:05maltesetmessageid: <1508415125.16.0.0406549045278.issue739@unibas.ch>
2017-10-19 14:12:05maltesetrecipients: + malte, jendrik, silvan
2017-10-19 14:12:05maltelinkissue739 messages
2017-10-19 14:12:05maltecreate