From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf1-f68.google.com (mail-lf1-f68.google.com
 [209.85.167.68])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB99543D67A
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:08:22 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lf1-f68.google.com with SMTP id g21so1893084lfh.4
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu, 17 Oct 2019 14:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:08:20 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20191017210820.GE9698@uranus.lan>
References: <6de1f18613e9b6a3f716c60b9c85457d2bd9eb64.1571341771.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <20191017200042.GC9698@uranus.lan>
 <b21e39e6-ec60-9e75-fbf6-857623284663@tarantool.org>
 <20191017210505.GD9698@uranus.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191017210505.GD9698@uranus.lan>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 1/1]
 console: fix usage of an undeclared variable
List-Id: Tarantool development <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:05:05AM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:31:00PM +0200, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> > > 
> > > We're reading from a socket and there could be EOF, which will
> > > give us zero return code. But now we will start to yielding
> > > an error in this case.
> > > 
> > 
> > set_error is aware of that. It says 'Peer closed' on EOF.
> 
> Looks reasonable enough. Thanks!

Still (if only I'm not missing something obvious) this changes
api a bit -- previously we've been returning empty string for
this case but now we will print 'Peer closed', hopefully this
won't be a problem though.

	Cyrill