This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: Feedback from GSL folks on libflame 4.0
- From: Gerard Jungman <jungman at lanl dot gov>
- To: gsl-discuss mailing list <gsl-discuss at sourceware dot org>
- Cc: "Field G. Van Zee" <field at cs dot utexas dot edu>, Rhys Ulerich <rhys dot ulerich at gmail dot com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:54:44 -0700
- Subject: Re: Feedback from GSL folks on libflame 4.0
- References: <4a00655d1002171047t4e87fb85w88b609245e3f9a8e@mail.gmail.com> <4B7D90B5.4020707@cs.utexas.edu> <87wry9ovy6.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 19:40 +0000, Brian Gough wrote:
>
> The approach in GSL is to have an abort() by default, for the same
> reason. But the user can turn off the abort() and use the error
> return values instead by providing an alternative error handler as a
> function pointer. Here's how it would look with your functions:
Yes. But don't do it this way. This is not layered properly.
Read my previous post.
The problem with this is that a third-party library developer
has to figure out how to turn it off. It's better to publish
two interfaces, one "natural" targeted to end-users and one
"return-code" targeted for use by developers of other systems.
--
G. Jungman