Critical crypto bug leaves Linux, hundreds of apps open to eavesdropping

Re: Critical crypto bug leaves Linux, hundreds of apps open ... by tptacek on Tuesday March 04, 2014 @03:05PM (#7342706)

Using zero for errors means you can express error checking directly with C expressions that appear boolean. It's not as safe or rigorous, but is more readable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: Critical crypto bug leaves Linux, hundreds of apps open ... by userbinator on Tuesday March 04, 2014 @07:14PM (#7344259)

Using nonzero for errors means you can do the same thing. This is common in things like this:

    if(somefunc()) goto fail;

Additionally, if the return is a fail/pass status, there is only one success (0), and you can use all the nonzero values for error codes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: Critical crypto bug leaves Linux, hundreds of apps open ... by prewett on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @07:54AM (#7346639)

Yes, you can, but that doesn't read very well to my eyes, given most function names. if(open()), if(read()), if (CreateWindowExW()), all suggest success to me.

   if (!open(...)) goto fail;

   if (!read(...)) goto fail;

   if (!close(...)) goto fail;

reads a lot nicer to me. Although, the reality is that you need to assign to an error variable, which makes it not as nice and clean.

[ Parent | on HN ]