This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com 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
a
>> return value to communicate from a callee to a caller function. Any other
>> method *must* be more complicated, and I do believe in avoiding
unnecessary
>> 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!
:-)</cheeky>

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 ini.cc), but I consider this to
be a separate issue, meriting a separate patch.

> A more useful analogy:

Studied. (Hopefully) memorized.

Max.


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