Consistency, especially internally, is always good.
I mean, that's the reason it got changed to InitCheck() in the first
place, right?
Ok, so in this case, it's super specific to the code in question, and
isn't going to affect any 3rd
party devs. But it could conceviably have a tertiary effect of
influencing other internal code, and
evenutally spin out of control to consume existence as we know it!
Perhaps not ...
Alan
Michael Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 15:34:54 -0700, Alan Westbrook
> <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I saw this checkin, and am concenred about the symantics of
>> InitCheck() here.
>>
>> I believe that InitCheck() everywhere else should be returning a
>> status_t.
>
>
> InitCheck is used in this source file only and it is not intended
> to
> be used anywhere else, so why should we worry about it?
>
> - Michael
>