This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [setup PATCH] next_dialog micropatch (2)

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 19:32, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> I'm also extremely puzzled, since you seem to be objecting to the use of
>> return value to communicate from a callee to a caller function. Any other
>> method *must* be more complicated, and I do believe in avoiding
>> complication.
> *must* is not strictly true here.
> The thing I was objecting to was the use of the return value to return
> program flow decisions, as opposed to the information needed to make the
> decision.

Ah. I can very easily understand the above objection, but do not believe it
applies to my patch.
My point is, that currently, program flow decisions are returned in a global
variable. I'm trying to change it so that program flow decisions are
returned in a return value.

I.e., I'm working on the "global variable" ugliness, not the "returns
program flow decisions" ugliness. The fact that I am solving the former
should not compel me to solve the latter simultaneously.
<cheeky>After all, patches should be modular, and as small as possible!

Hence my confusion about the rejection of this patch.

I'm happy to try and tackle the "returns program flow decisions" issue (in
fact, I already have planned the changes to, but I consider this to
be a separate issue, meriting a separate patch.

> A more useful analogy:

Studied. (Hopefully) memorized.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]