Re: Error-safe user functions

Returning to the naming quagmire -- it occurred to me just now that
it might be helpful to call this style of error reporting "soft"
errors rather than "safe" errors, which'd provide a nice contrast
with "hard" errors thrown by longjmp'ing.  That would lead to naming
all the variant functions XXXSoft not XXXSafe.  There would still
be commentary to the effect that "soft errors must be safe, in the
sense that there's no question whether it's safe to continue
processing the transaction".  Anybody think that'd be an
improvement?