From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <de9be5df7485523c9433706a8bc4bbaa@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] GNU Make
Date: Thu,  3 Jun 2004 17:58:25 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <07fc01c44981$1bc3eb90$9a7e7d50@SOMA>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 942a5822-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> perhaps the should only return BROKEN and tell the user instead of the ECALLBACKINAWHILEIFYOURFEELINGLUCKYPUNK ... ?

They _do_ return BROKEN, that's what the "error" condition conveys.
Now we need to discuss how to represent the particular error condition
involved and to what extent.

In my opinion, it is desirable to be able to express the details in
more than one language, one of the languages being that understood by
Unix.  To this end, my preference is for a documented, disciplined
message format.  Such a message format would make it possible to
express all available details _and_ still provide a more general (the
class that rog mentions) index for circumstances when the details are
not important.  The APE simplification then falls out automatically.

++L