From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) In-Reply-To: <8ba1956a9b92658e6e3c216f3cc5b3cc@plan9.ucalgary.ca> References: <8ba1956a9b92658e6e3c216f3cc5b3cc@plan9.ucalgary.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Rob Pike Subject: Re: [9fans] making emalloc a library function To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 09:06:13 -0800 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1ef2cee0-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > deja vu... anyone looking to add e* functions to a library should > read the 'same functions everywhere' thread started almost exactly > a year ago. contains some good arguments against it. right. my main objection is that the specification of what to do in the case of errors is so application-dependent that making a library for it will either fail to capture many cases or encourage programs to fail poorly. plus, i mean really, how hard is emalloc to write? the part you'd put in a library is trivial. the part that matters is still up to you. -rob