standards/61934: [PATCH] FreeBSD's mailx not completely SUSv3-compliant

[Mike Heffner]

The following reply was made to PR standards/61934; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Mike Heffner <mheffner at vt.edu>
To: Wartan Hachaturow <wart at tepkom.ru>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: standards/61934: [PATCH] FreeBSD's mailx not completely SUSv3-compliant
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:20:40 -0500 (EST)

 On 18-Feb-2004 Wartan Hachaturow wrote:
 | On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 12:59:59AM -0500, Mike Heffner wrote:
 | 
 |> your modified setfile() should work in those cases as well. So, can you
 |> modify setfile to return a more descriptive error code like in your
 |> checkmail and use it instead for the -e option? Also, the fprintf that
 | 
 | Well, if we're agreed on not printing "No mail for .." in -e case, then
 | there's
 | a problem with setfile usage, which prints that for other usage cases.
 | Of 
 | course, I can add an additional flag to arguments, but.. Isn't it
 | clearer to use another function? 
 
 Yes, something like this should do:
 
 if (!eOption)
         fprintf("No mail for...");
 
 Duplicating the ~100 lines of code for setfile for this change and slight
 change to the return code is really not a good idea, IMHO.
 
 The only current uses of setfile() are:
 
         cmd3.c:560:     if (setfile(*argv) < 0)
         extern.h:219:int         setfile(char *);
         lex.c:65:setfile(name)
         main.c:250:     if (setfile(ef) < 0)
 
 Therefore, changing setfile to have a tri-state return value (< 0, 0, 1)
 will still work in these cases that are simply testing for a failure.
 
 
 Mike
 
 -- 
   Mike Heffner       <mheffner@[acm.]vt.edu>
                          <mikeh at FreeBSD.org>