From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5c343887249a3ffa3bab09d34d26b3a4@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:38:10 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <138575260908180741j56414d5dxcfa1fbc30a48bb3d@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] sed oddity
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4db5d4cc-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> 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