From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Booting on slow CPUs
Message-ID: <20020316203126.S18259@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <5a41b36e913f59de1dd89b542c8d9a55@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <5a41b36e913f59de1dd89b542c8d9a55@plan9.bell-labs.com>; from Russ Cox on Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 03:07:49PM -0500
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 20:31:27 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 68416ef6-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 03:07:49PM -0500, Russ Cox wrote:
> 
> You need to poperror() on the path where there's no error, thus:
> 
> 	if(waserror()){
> 		/* no poperror on this path ... */
> 		return nil;
> 	}
> 	poperror();
> 
I guess I ought to look at waserror(), but surely the above is totally
counter-intuitive?  Maybe a poor selection of function names?

> but
> 
> 	if(!waserror()){
> 		/* do some stuff... */
> 		poperror();
> 	}
> 	/* more stuff */
> 
> The second is idiomatic for ``do some stuff, stopping early
> if you encounter an error; either way, then do more stuff.''
> 
Sorry, I'm being obtuse here, but perhaps you want to rephrase your
description: would

"if no error, do some stuff; irrespective, thereafter do more stuff"

be more accurate (if slightly mangled English)?

++L