pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Derived metric issues

To: "'Frank Ch. Eigler'" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Derived metric issues
From: "Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 06:19:27 +1100
Cc: "'Lukas Berk'" <lberk@xxxxxxxxxx>, <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160221130818.GA24969@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <56B99888.2020408@xxxxxxxxxx> <56BA4445.2030404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8737ssptwp.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0m7fi4bo0d.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <000101d16c5b$0feb2ef0$2fc18cd0$@internode.on.net> <20160221130818.GA24969@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AQHUeX3N1oEBYQg8H015/Judt3cPQQFDvULXAgTHmS8AercbbwHsGnhPAw4lBmee6tlzEA==
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Ch. Eigler [mailto:fche@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, 22 February 2016 12:08 AM
> To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: 'Lukas Berk' <lberk@xxxxxxxxxx>; pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Derived metric issues
> 
> Hi, Ken -
> 
> > [...]
> > And finally the man page now reads like this ...
> 
> > [...]  Catastrophic errors such as not being able to open one of the
> > files on the given path will cause an immediate return with a
> negative
> > return value [...]
> 
> Is it obvious that such an error must be considered "catastrophic"?
> The string parameter is now a colon-separated path with directories
> and/or files.  Why would we want to stop after the first "not being
> able to open", instead of continuing?

For all the use cases I can think of, someone using this routine would be
doing so with an expectation that the path argument contains only readable
files and/or directories.

There is no clearly "right" answer for all of the (low probability, I would
expect) corner cases, so I think the behaviour I've implemented is OK until
I hear a plausible use case where this is produces unexpected results.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>