[ros-dev] Re: [ros-svn] [gdalsnes]18113:-reorderInsertXscendingOrder macro argument order and update uses

[Alex Ionescu]

Gunnar Dalsnes wrote:

> Ge van Geldorp wrote:
>
>>> From: Gunnar Dalsnes
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh, so goto's are acceptable if and only if you hide them out of 
>>>> sight?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, i think gotos are ok internally but i dont like them for return. 
>>> First set a retval and then goto to the end. ugh...ly.
>>
>>
>>
>> The definition of your RETURN():
>>
>> #define RETURN(value) { _ret_ = value; goto _cleanup_; }
>>
>> which seems to set a retval and then does a goto to the end. So, again,
>> "ugly code" (your words, not mine) is acceptable if you hide it out of
>> sight?
>
>
> Yes. Hiding it _is_ the point. 

You've just proven yourself what's wrong with flow control macros. Do 
you really think that in the sorry state in which Win32K is, it really 
needs macros to HIDE what's going on? When we can't even show a font 
properly with -O2? When we still have random graphics corruption? When 
we.. (I could go on for ages).

> Readability is what its all about.

Readability != Hiding code.

> Not the code behind the names. I dont care whats behind a 
> name/operator (compiler builtin, assembly, function call, macro etc.) 
> as long as it do what i want and have a (in this case) _uniqueue_ name 
> that describes what it does. Imo, "RETURN(45)" look better than "ret = 
> 45; goto cleanup;".

"I"mo. Not the "o" of 15 other people. So don't force it.

>
> BTW: As for thinking about what low level code lies behind a name i 
> remeber the old(?) "i dont want to use while(TRUE) because it produce 
> shitty asm, so i use for(;;) instead". I don't know if anyone thinks 
> that anymore, but those who did needs a good spanking;-P
>
>> BTW, the following code which looks perfectly acceptable won't compile
>> correctly with your definition:
>>
>> if (somecondition)
>>   RETURN(errorcode);
>> else
>>   do_something_else();
>>
>> I admit this is a bit contrived example, you don't need the "else".
>
>
> Finally some constructive critisism;-P
>
> It can be solved like this:
>
> #define RETURN(value) do {_ret_ = value; goto _cleanup_; }while(0)
>
>>
>> Gé van Geldorp.
>>
>
> G.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu