Rockbox mail archive

• Next message: Mike Holden: "Re: Read errors"
• Previous message: Mike Holden: "Re: Read errors"
• In reply to: Mike Holden: "Re: Read errors"
• Next in thread: Mike Holden: "Re: Read errors"
• Reply: Mike Holden: "Re: Read errors"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Mike Holden wrote:
> Maybe a better construct would be to define 2 macros, called success() and
> failure() which do a bit of hidden "magic" to make the code more readable.

Absolutely not! That kind of "hidden magic" is against everything my
coding philosophy stands for. I want things visible in the code. Keep It
Simple Stupid.

> That way you can write "if (success(somefunction()))", which is way more
> readable than "if(somefunction())" where somefunction() returns 0 for
> success.

I don't agree. I think the latter is way more readable, because it shows
what is going on, instead of hiding it in a hard-to-debug macro.

A simple comment may be in place, however.

/Linus

• Next message: Mike Holden: "Re: Read errors"
• Previous message: Mike Holden: "Re: Read errors"
• In reply to: Mike Holden: "Re: Read errors"
• Next in thread: Mike Holden: "Re: Read errors"
• Reply: Mike Holden: "Re: Read errors"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]