Ben Pfaff cs.stanford.edu> writes:
> This replaces exit(0) by exit(EXIT_SUCCESS), which makes sense
> because POSIX says that EXIT_SUCCESS is defined as 0. But does
> it always make sense to replace exit(1) by exit(EXIT_FAILURE)?
> POSIX does not say that EXIT_FAILURE is always 1, but it does sa
Jim Meyering writes:
> Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> Jim Meyering writes:
>>
>>> I'm encountering a lot of exit(0)/exit(1) uses that
>>> trigger this new "syntax-check" rule, so I've taken
>>> the time to automate most of the clean-up process.
>>
>> This replaces exit(0) by exit(EXIT_SUCCESS), which makes
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Jim Meyering writes:
>
>> I'm encountering a lot of exit(0)/exit(1) uses that
>> trigger this new "syntax-check" rule, so I've taken
>> the time to automate most of the clean-up process.
>
> This replaces exit(0) by exit(EXIT_SUCCESS), which makes sense
> because POSIX says that
Jim Meyering writes:
> I'm encountering a lot of exit(0)/exit(1) uses that
> trigger this new "syntax-check" rule, so I've taken
> the time to automate most of the clean-up process.
This replaces exit(0) by exit(EXIT_SUCCESS), which makes sense
because POSIX says that EXIT_SUCCESS is defined as
I'm encountering a lot of exit(0)/exit(1) uses that
trigger this new "syntax-check" rule, so I've taken
the time to automate most of the clean-up process.
The commands don't change usage(0)/usage(1), but those
probably belong separate, since they won't be as numerous
and you should verify that the
