Re: sasc re-write

[David Cuthbert <dacut@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -On [20050118 05:02], David Cuthbert (dacut@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > Heh... this is one of those areas where there seem to be two distinct 
> > camps with little grey area. :-)

Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
> I think that this says enough:
>
> intro(2):
>
> Successful calls never set errno; once set, it remains until another error
> occurs.  It should only be examined after an error.

Different issue.  That just says that you can't rely on errno if the 
call is successful -- this is unambiguous.

The camps I was referring to are:

    if (errno)
        do_something();

vs.:

    if (errno != 0)
        do_something();


Clearly, the latter is The Way God Intended(tm), and the former is the 
way only infidels check integral values.  I also have it on good 
authority that God Prefers Emacs and the UN has passed a resolution 
banning VHDL in favor of Verilog.  And if you believe any of this 
paragraph, I have an amazing multi-level marketing opportunity for you! :-)

Dave