On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:21:46 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" wrote:
> What is the reason that we are trying to generalize non-fatal from a
> simple switch to a full-blown primitive that should handle whatever
> it's thrown?
We aren't. nonfatal is done as a prefix rather than a --switch for the
sa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ryan Hill :
>
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:56:41 +0100
>> David Leverton wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone have any opinions on which of the four options (#1
>>> make die respect nonfatal, #2 make die always die, #3 add a
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:09:52 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> > I'd like die to respect nonfatal. People using nonfatal should
> > check beforehand that the functions they're calling won't do
> > anything stupid if die's are ignored.
>
> If you're doing that then it might be wise to add an 'assert' hel
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:56:41 +0100
> David Leverton wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any opinions on which of the four options (#1
>> make die respect nonfatal, #2 make die always die, #3 add a new
>> die variant that respects nonfatal, #4 make regular die respect
>> nonfatal, and
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:20:44PM +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ryan Hill :
>
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:56:41 +0100
> > David Leverton wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone have any opinions on which of the four options (#1
> > > make die respect nonfatal, #2 make die always die, #3 add
Hi,
Ryan Hill :
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:56:41 +0100
> David Leverton wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any opinions on which of the four options (#1
> > make die respect nonfatal, #2 make die always die, #3 add a new
> > die variant that respects nonfatal, #4 make regular die respect
> > nonfatal,
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:56:41 +0100
David Leverton wrote:
> Does anyone have any opinions on which of the four options (#1
> make die respect nonfatal, #2 make die always die, #3 add a new
> die variant that respects nonfatal, #4 make regular die respect
> nonfatal, and add a new variant that does
On Friday 21 August 2009 21:56:41 David Leverton wrote:
> A potential advantage of this over the previous solution is that if
> the "force" option is implemented with an environment variable,
> it can be used regardless of EAPI
...except that the previous solution could use an environment variable
