From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <098ef1d28aa9506eb50741e7fdae5ba7@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:58:07 -0400
From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] quantity vs. quality
In-Reply-To: <448B508C.1@lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 67bfcdcc-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

there's nothing inviolate about fixing the library
to do what you want. for example, in this case, the default
sysfatal behaviour could stay the same, but it would
return the value returned by _sysfatal, say a string.
then we look at all the places it's used and see if
it needs any tweaking.

or something like that. if you can agree on some better
implementation that satisfies everyone then that's what
we do. routines like sysfatal end up in the library as
someone thought they were common idioms in a bunch of
existing programmes. sometimes the idiom needs refinement
after it's been seen in place.

--jim

On Sat Jun 10 19:07:50 EDT 2006, rminnich@lanl.gov wrote:
> quanstro@quanstro.net wrote:
> 
> > sure you can.  sysfatal calls _sysfatal to do the deed.  redefine that to call your
> > fancy cleanup routine and you're golden.
> 
> wrong approach. _sysfatal has no idea what's going on. The code that 
> called the library call has every idea what's going on.
> 
> 
> 
> ron