Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <trinity-ca966487-0a1b-4764-aed0-db52921dcd0b-1421288059648@3capp-mailcom-bs04>,
> Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> wrote:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >> On Jan 14, 1:35am, n54%gmx.com@localhost ("Kamil Rytarowski") wrote:
> >> -- Subject: Re: Reuse strtonum(3) and reallocarray(3) from OpenBSD
> >>
> >> | Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >> | > I still don't get what you buy by having 2 sets of functions to
> >save a passed
> >> | > NULL pointer... Aside confusion.
> >> |
> >> | Remove duplication of information returned to caller, related to
> >partial conversion.
> >> | Also returning error for valid conversion is (for me) misguiding.
> >> |
> >> | What do you think about this to return ENOTSUP only if:
> >> | - endptr was passed as NULL and
> >> | - there happened partial conversion.
> >>
> >> What about if no characters match? How do you tell the difference?
> >> So if endptr != NULL behave differently? This is confusing.
> >
> >Well, I was thinking about this use-case and if there is need to differentiate
> >partial conversion with and without parsed digits.
> >
> >A candidate would be to set *rerror to ECANCELED in this case.
>
> I think there is because if no characters were read there was no conversion,
> and thus no valid return value. ECANCELED for that seems ok to me.
>
Done!Attachment:
patch-src-common
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
patch-src-include
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
patch-src-lib
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
patch-src-sys
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
patch-src-tools
Description: Binary data