On Jan 4, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Alexander Best wrote:

quoted text
> On Tue Jan  4 11, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:25:02 am Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:40:45AM +0100, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>> @@ -123,12 +121,28 @@ main(argc, argv)
>>> 		}
>>> 		exit(0);
>>> 	}
>>> -	exit (1);
>>> +	exit(1);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int
>>> +parseint(const char *str, const char *errname)
>>> +{
>>> +	char *endp;
>>> +	long res;
>>> +
>>> +	errno = 0;
>>> +	res = strtol(str, &endp, 10);
>>> +	if (errno != 0 || endp == str || *endp != '__PLACEHOLDER__0_')
>>> +		err(1, "%s shall be a number", errname);
>> 
>> Small nit, maybe use 'must' instead of 'shall'.
> 
> it seems at some point there has been a massive usage of the term 'shall' in
> manual pages, which people tried to get rid of. hence the
> 'usr/share/examples/mdoc/deshallify.sh' script.

I know shall is used widely by opengroup when describing definitions and interfaces in the POSIX standards, but the connotation in English is very squishy, so I agree with John that must would be better.

BTW, only if errno was non-zero would using err(3) be logical. Otherwise it will just produce noise :).

quoted text
> maybe this should be noted in style(9)?

Thanks,
-Garrett_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"