Re: [RFC] setting proper result codes

[Keith Seitz <keiths at cygnus dot com>]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Martin M. Hunt wrote:

> void
> set_result (Tcl_Interp *interp, const char *fmt,...)
> {
>   va_list args;
>   char *buf;
>
>   va_start (args, fmt);
>   xvasprintf (&buf, fmt, args);
>   va_end (args);
>   Tcl_SetObjResult (interp, Tcl_NewStringObj (buf, -1));
>   free(buf);
> }

Yes, I think this is pretty obviously needed, too. Developers simply need
to remember that tcl commands in the interpreter are tcl commands: if they
return TCL_ERROR, they should leave an error message in the interpreter,
not in result_ptr. (Thanks to Tom Tromey for clarifying this some time
ago.)

Other than using "free" (should be "xfree"), I don't see a problem with
the code, and I think it would be a good addition.

Now let's talk about the name... :-)

I have been sporadically attempting to define interfaces into our C code
that others can tap. The most immediate group of developers that come to
mind: plugin writers. Ok, there aren't any, but there could be one day
before this project dies.

Unfortunately, I've only started down this road, and haven't made a whole
lot of headroom... But, gdbtk-cmds.h does exist and contain some useful
functions, although they all suffer from severe namespace problems.

What I think I would like to do is have all the really external functions
(like our call wrapper) begin with "insight_". Right now, nothing does
that, but your result-setting thingy could be the first! (Anyone have a
problem with this?)

Keith