From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5c343887249a3ffa3bab09d34d26b3a4@quanstro.net>
References: <138575260908180741j56414d5dxcfa1fbc30a48bb3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<5c343887249a3ffa3bab09d34d26b3a4@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:47:14 +0200
Message-ID: <138575260908190047o220ee1dfv2b0675cfb0b51526@mail.gmail.com>
From: hugo rivera <uair00@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] sed oddity
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4e332954-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Sadly things like sed are out of my reach; I have no idea how to
program languages.
Thanks for the reply.

2009/8/18, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>:
> > is there some reason why sed doesn't check for write errors on its
>  > stdout? (or at least it doesn't report them)
>
>
> /n/sources/patch/sederrors
>
>  while i agree that sed seems more complicated that i would
>  like when debugging, eating errors seems like the wrong thing
>  to do.  it seems easy enough >[2]/dev/null if the old behavior
>  is wanted.
>
>  the problem was that B* functions (Bopen, Bputc, Bputrune, Bterm)
>  were not consistently being checked for errors.
>
>  i wonder if it would make sense to add a ->error() member
>  to Biobufhdr.  since most programs just want to quit if they
>  have a bio error, they could just quit there without needing
>  lots tedious error checking.
>
>  perhaps ->error could just be a boolean.
>
>
>  - erik
>
>


--
Hugo