# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
#
# Usage:
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users View list of users and latest twt date.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt View all twts.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri View all mentions for uri.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash View all twts for a conversation subject.
#
# Options:
# uri Filter to show a specific users twts.
# offset Start index for quey.
# limit Count of items to return (going back in time).
#
# twt range = 1 15
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/kzjdhia
Oh, this is interesting! Reading the Crafting Interpreters book, I came across a table of exit codes in FreeBSD.
I didn't know that a command line usage error is supposed to report exit code 64. In the past I either simply exited with 1 or sometimes each exit statement got its own dedicated number. The latter came in useful for debugging shell scripts. I exactly knew which branch was executed. That was handy when the error messages were similar or even the same.
I was always wondering if there is some kind of a standard, but I never did my reasearch. Looking at other people's code, it always seemed to me that everybody just did wantever they wanted to in regards to exit codes. I just looked up what else is out there and systemd also defines heaps of errors. It even references the FreeBSD one and links to the Linux Standard Base specification, too. Cool, cool!
Do you guys know of these conventions and make use of them?
@lyse Oh man I completely missed that in the book 🤦♂️ No I wasn't aware! 😢
@lyse Oh man I completely missed that in the book 🤦♂️ No I wasn't aware! 😢
@lyse Whoops. Wasn’t aware of this, either. 🤔 I don’t see this being used much, either. Most just define their own set of codes. 🤔
@lyse Whoops. Wasn’t aware of this, either. 🤔 I don’t see this being used much, either. Most just define their own set of codes. 🤔
@lyse Whoops. Wasn’t aware of this, either. 🤔 I don’t see this being used much, either. Most just define their own set of codes. 🤔
@lyse Whoops. Wasn’t aware of this, either. 🤔 I don’t see this being used much, either. Most just define their own set of codes. 🤔
@movq That's my experience too. But it's good to know there's a standard. Is there a definitive link to this anywhere? 🤔
@movq That's my experience too. But it's good to know there's a standard. Is there a definitive link to this anywhere? 🤔
@lyse I mean, if there was a standardize easier to read list somewhere we could potentially create a shed Go package that defines these constants, right?
@lyse I mean, if there was a standardize easier to read list somewhere we could potentially create a shed Go package that defines these constants, right?
@prologic Your message got a bit mangled up I reckon, not sure if I understand it. I don't find these lists hard to read. The question is more, which of the standards do you follow? I doubt that another package really helps a lot. I mean, one can just use the codes already if one wanted to.