[ros-dev] Re: [ros-svn] [gdalsnes]
18113:-reorderInsertXscendingOrder macro argument order and update uses
hardon at online.no
Wed Sep 28 12:45:20 CEST 2005
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
>>From: Gunnar Dalsnes
>>>And I think these macro's are a perfect example of
>>>Phillip's point. I have no idea how the flow of
>>>control is without looking at the macro definitions.
>>Sure you do, if you try _reeeealy_ hard;-P
> No, really, I don't <<without looking at the macro definitions>>. RETURN
> sounds much like return, it is non-obvious that they're actually goto's to
> CLEANUP. Ofcourse, I figured it out when you committed that stuff 3 weeks
> ago, but when looking at it last night it was again non-obvious to me.
> On the other hand, I had no problem whatsoever figuring out the macro-free
> code that Nathan posted:
Yes, but how is this different from someone not knowing/understanding
that a finally block is called when returning from a try block? I may
very well think the the finally block is only executed if i run at the
end of the try block. But i _learned_ and figured out how it works. And
now i _remeber_. But its not that same you say, because the macro _can_
be implemented by hardcoding, while try/finally cannot. Uhm, try/finally
in ros IS macros;-P Noone said, "kjk, s*rew you and your seh macros."
"This belongs in the compiler." "I refuse to learn how to use those ugly
> BOOL NtFunc()
> BOOL bResult;
> void *pPointer = NULL;
> if (Stuff)
> bResult = FALSE;
> goto cleanup;
> bResult = TRUE;
> if (pPointer)
> DPRINT1("NtFunc returned %i\n", bResult);
> return bResult;
>>2)Using gotos are much more ugly imo.
> 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. I didnt make
those macros so i could type less. I made they so i can _read_ less.
Thats the point. Readability. When looking at code i like to quickly
spot the points of return. In complex code, and if it already have
gotos, its confusing. Having a reserved word like RETURN is also nice
for sytax highlightning (and its actually the same _word_ as normally
used for return;-). Making up a mind about what the code does very
quickly is nice, and with RETURN i can do that just as fast (faster) as
Im sure all of you would like those macros if you didnt refuse to learn-
and use them. But as long as you do you will off course hate them. I
hate all the stuff i dont understand as well.
More information about the Ros-dev