https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148275
--- Comment #7 from Stephan Bergmann <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #5) > Do you mean "std::exit after the first failure"? What I had thought about was to change the code so that where apparently it currently unconditionally does the equivalent of std::exit(EXIT_SUCCESS), make it do the equivalent of std::exit(EXIT_FAILURE) if any of those --convert-to operations had failed (after processing all of them). But stopping after the first failing one might be fine as well. > How a user would know if some previous ones succeeded? Why would we care? If the user wants to have more precise information about which operations succeeded or failed, they could either call soffice for each of them individually, or they could presumably use the UNO API to do the same operations with more fine grained error reporting. > I suppose that EXIT_FAILURE is more about inability to run. But having > another dedicated value for the case would likely make it simple enough, and > still distinguishable? EXIT_FAILURE is all that the C/C++ standards portably offer. It traditionally translates to an exit status of 1 on Posix (and Windows), which traditionally represents a catch-all "failure" status in those environments. I still fail to see a need for a more specific exit status for "some --convert-to operation failed" in those environments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
