[zeromq-dev] Questions about Coding Style

niXman i.nixman at gmail.com
Sat Feb 11 20:47:39 CET 2012

I'm confused ...
Do you all agree with that the arguments must be checked? And with the
fact that in case of error of arguments is not necessary to use assert
but set errno and return -1?

2012/2/11 Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 6:27 PM, niXman <i.nixman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> For example the call:
>>>rc = zmq_setsockopt (sub, ZMQ_SUBSCRIBE, 0, 4);
>> will end on segmentation fault on line 56 of the sub.cpp file.
>> According to the documentation, if an error occurs, the function
>> should return -1.
>> I can not decide how to handle such a situation. Should I use assert
>> or return EINVAL?
> Assertions were historically misused in ZeroMQ to handle user errors.
> They should be used only to assert impossible conditions, i.e.
> internal errors where continuing is unacceptable. It is (I've used
> this analogy before) like a cell being highly resistant to invading
> bacteria and viruses, but self-destructing it if gets a mutation in
> its DNA.
> Any remaining cases of asserting on bad input are considered bugs, and
> can be fixed as such (issue, test case, and patch).
> Thanks a lot for the code review, this is great.
> -Pieter
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list